John Hostettler

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence I spoke.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. It continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats. Do not get me wrong. Democrats know they should not be doing this. The spirit of, if not the exact, language in the underlying bill added by the Democrat ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin was offered by a Democrat in the Armed Services Committee during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 DOD authorization bill. The author of that language in the authorizing committee, the gentleman from New York, has suggested since that time that ``extremist groups'' are behind the removal of language similar to his. I and others who spoke in opposition to that amendment had never even heard of the notion of such an amendment until the gentleman from New York actually offered it during the committee markup. And so I am curious as to who these extremists are that the gentleman from New York spoke of. Mr. Chairman, we may never know because that is the nature of this debate, name-calling of unspecified people and groups who hold a world view different than many of these Democrats. And, as I said, Mr. Chairman, Democrats know they should not be doing this. Following the overwhelming opposition voiced at the DOD markup, the Democrat ranking member of the committee requested the gentleman from New York to withdraw the amendment, which he did. * * *

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There have been the terms ``subversive'' and ``subversion'' used a lot in the gentleman's remarks. I would simply like to point the gentleman to the very words of the individual he believed he was quoting from earlier in that the final word by Chief Justice Marshall, while he was Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is very clear. It may be considered by the gentleman from New York to be subversive, but it is quite clear. John Marshall said: ``I think the modern doctrine of impeachment should yield to an appellate jurisdiction in the legislature. A reversal of those legal opinions deemed unsound by the legislature would certainly better comport with the mildness of our character than would a removal of the judge who has rendered them unknowing of his fault.'' Let us today preserve the subversion of Chief Justice John Marshall and allow this amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In Russelburg v. Gibson County, a Federal district judge in the Southern District of Indiana ruled that the presence of a monument depicting the Ten Commandments in Gibson County amounts to a government establishment of religion because, as he stated, the display ``is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment to the United States Constitution.'' This decision is inconsistent with both the clear intent of the framers and the Christian heritage of the United States, which was recounted by the Supreme Court in 1892. While it is true this opinion is consistent with more recent Supreme Court decisions, it is time that Congress exercise its authority to end the practical effect of this judicial misunderstanding. My amendment would prevent any funds from being used to enforce this unconstitutional and unlawful judgment. The local Fraternal Order of Eagles placed the monument on the Gibson County courthouse lawn in 1956. Clearly, this generous gift to the community is not the equivalent of Congress passing a law to establish a national religion. Mr. Chairman, here are the facts: Federal statute says, ``Except as otherwise provided by law or Rule of Procedure, the United States Marshals Service shall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States . . . '' Since this ruling by the Southern District Court in Indiana is not a lawful decision consistent with the Constitution, I will utilize Congress's article I, section 8 power of the purse to prevent any funding from being used by the U.S. Marshals Service to remove the Ten Commandments monument. Mr. Chairman, the Founders of this great Nation foresaw the problem of courts imposing their own political views through their judgments and wrote about it. In promoting the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78: ``Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary . . . is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; ``The judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment . . . '' Mr. Chairman, given the fact that the judiciary has neither force nor will, it is left to the executive and the legislative branches to exert that force and will. Time and again I am sure that my fellow Members of Congress are asked about unconstitutional decisions made by the Federal courts, and many of us say there is nothing we can do. That answer is inconsistent with our Constitution and the vision of our Founders. We can do something. And, Mr. Chairman, that is not only my opinion and the opinion of the framers of the Constitution and the authors of the Federalist Papers. It is also the opinion of a rather noted jurist by the name of John Marshall. Many in this body may recall that Mr. Marshall was actually Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. While he served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he had an occasion to correspond with an Associate Justice, Samuel Chase. It seems that Justice Chase was the object of impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives for, among other things, suggesting that Federal judiciary could disregard the clear intent of the legislature when considering cases before his court. Chief Justice Marshall asserted to Justice Chase that there was a superior mechanism for the legislature to consider over that of impeachment when the Congress disapproved of the opinion of the Federal judiciary. Marshal stated: ``I think the modern doctrine of impeachment should yield to an appellate jurisdiction in the legislature. A reversal of those legal opinions deemed unsound by the legislature would certainly better comport with the mildness of our character than would a removal of the judge who has rendered them unknowing of his fault.'' Marshall's Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, Albert Beveridge, observes of this assertion made by Marshall 11 months after Marbury v. Madison: ``Marshall thus suggested the most radical method for correcting judicial decisions ever advanced, before or since, by any man of the first class. Appeals from the Supreme Court to Congress. Senators and Representatives to be the final judges of any judicial decision with which a majority of the House was dissatisfied.'' Mr. Chairman, today is a great opportunity for us to exercise that very authority ``advanced'' by Chief Justice Marshall concerning the legislature vis-a-vis the judiciary. After this vote, Mr. Chairman, our constituents will ask us, Congressman, do we have a voice in these most fundamental decisions, or are we condemned to wait on a new Supreme Court Justice who may or may not inject common sense into the judiciary's opinions? And we will be able to tell them, Yes, you do have a say. The Constitution explicitly provides it. And venerated jurists such as John Marshall have ``advanced'' it. This legislation is where we fund any executive agency that would enforce the Southern District Court of Indiana's judgment in this case. My amendment would prevent any funds within that act from being used to enforce the erroneous decision in Russelburg v. Gibson County, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the combination of the three amendments I will offer today. It would supply funds for the shortfall of ICE agents, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, border patrol agents and detention beds that have not yet been funded by this Congress. This shortfall occurs as a result of the difference between authorized levels due to last year's National Intelligence Reform Act and a combination of this year's appropriations bills, this appropriations bill and the recently passed supplemental. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is the agency tasked with enforcing immigration laws internally within the United States. It is critical that ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, receive the resources necessary to successfully complete its mission. The 9/11 Commission recognized the great importance of adequately securing our Nation's borders against the potential threats. We must make up the shortfall in funding and provide funding for the additional 500 border patrol agents who have not yet been funded. It is also critical that we have adequate detention bed space to house aliens that might otherwise never return for hearings or, worse, might commit crimes if not detained. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to fully fund critical parts of homeland security and the Bureau of Border Protection, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as detention beds. Point of Order

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to S. Con. Res. 31. In the attempt to correct an error in drafting, this concurrent resolution would allow for 50,000 new green cards reserved for nurses and physical therapists. Green card status is permanent resident status. Accompanying spouses and minors also will be given permanent resident status and will not be counted against the 50,000 cap. If this concurrent resolution is passed, it will give 50,000 nursing and physical therapist jobs away to foreign workers and will be giving even more jobs away to accompanying spouses, as those with permanent resident status are granted work permits. The argument that the current drafting of the supplemental ``recaptures unused employment-based visas'' from the past 2 years is false, since any employment-based visas that are not used are given up to meet the family-based visa quota for that year. A recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that ``there is little evidence that immigrants take only jobs Americans don't want.'' Another recent study conducted by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University says that ``there is little empirical support for the notion that new immigrants are taking large numbers of jobs that American workers refuse to accept. There is direct competition between new immigrants and native-born workers for most of these jobs.'' At a hearing I held last week as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims, the minority witness, Dr. Holzer, testified that, due to cost containment in certain fields, ``10 to 15 percent jobs in the United States potentially on the high end could face competition from engineers and computer programmers and others in India and China and other parts of the world.'' If you have any nursing or physical therapy students in your district, consider that those students who will be graduating this spring will have to compete with 50,000 foreign nurses and physical therapists who will likely work for lower wages. We will have to answer to our constituent nurses and physical therapists who cannot find a job due to the influx of foreign workers in this field. Also, if we pass this concurrent resolution for nurses and physical therapists, who will be the next workers that we will displace? Will we add 50,000 more new visas to each supplemental, driving more and more domestic American-born workers out of a job? Today, I ask my colleagues to support their constituents, American workers who are in the fields of nursing and physical therapy, and vote against this concurrent resolution.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, while I am not an attorney, it is my understanding that the perfect defense for a charge of libel is the truth. We have heard no discussions today about the substance of the descriptions in the committee report, and that is because the descriptions of the effects of the amendments in the committee report were accurate. Contrast that with the dissenting views the minority attached to the committee report. For example, the minority views state that the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is ``overtly hostile to families.'' The minority dissenting views in the committee report also describe the legislation as ``anti-physician and anti-family.'' Now, 270 Members of the House voted for legislation that the minority views stated was ``overtly hostile to families.'' Fifty-four Members of the other side of the aisle, the Democrat Party, voted for that bill. Surely there is no comparison between stating that broadly supported legislation, designed to protect parental rights and the health and safety of young women, is ``overtly hostile to families'' and accurately describing the consequences of poorly drafted amendments to the legislation. Further, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) who we heard from earlier in her press release last week referred to a conspiracy to ``falsely rewrite the intent of an amendment.'' First, there was no rewriting. The majority of the committee, in describing offered amendments, do not cut and paste any description of an amendment into a committee report. The majority describes the amendment offered as it understands it. Second, the purpose of describing an amendment is not to describe its intent. Its purpose is to describe its meaning and effect. What matters is not what is in the mind of a Member offering an amendment. It is what the text of the amendment offered would mean if it were made a part of the bill. Describing the effects of an amendment as it where is not the same as describing the subjective intent of the person offering the amendment. A committee report should do the former, not the latter, because what matters at the end of the day are the actual words on the page of a bill.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, my flight to Washington, DC, in the early morning hours of March 21, 2005 was delayed due to circumstances beyond my control. Consequently, I arrived shortly after the vote on S. 686 closed. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of S. 686, for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Shiavo.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The asylum provisions in H.R. 418 are vitally important to protect our constituents from child molesters, rapists, murderers, and other criminals, as well as terrorists seeking asylum in our country. I believe that we must keep the asylum open and honest for those who have a good-faith claim to asylum. However, we must also protect our constituents from aliens who seek to abuse our asylum processes and do harm to our citizens. For instance, because he was free after applying for asylum, Mir Aimal Kansi was able to murder two CIA employees at CIA headquarters. Ramzi Yousef took advantage of the freedom he gained by applying for asylum to mastermind the first World Trade Center attack which killed six and injured 1,000 in the amendment author's district. The asylum provisions in H.R. 418 do not prevent aliens from seeking asylum. Those who truly have been persecuted for religious or political grounds will be allowed to present their cases just as they are able to now. These provisions merely overturn Ninth Circuit Court decisions saying that immigration judges cannot use inconsistencies in an alien's statement to determine if he or she is being untruthful. The bill also says that an asylum applicant may be asked to corroborate his claim with evidence, if such evidence can be obtained without leaving the United States. One of the goals of this bill is to ensure that our asylum system is consistent with our judicial system. If a judge or criminal jury can sentence a criminal defendant to life in prison or even execution because they did not believe the defendant's story, certainly an immigration judge can deny an asylum claim to an alien for the same basis. When an American goes to court to settle a dispute, he bears the burden of proof to prove his claim. Requiring the asylum claimant to bear the burden of proof is consistent, both with our justice system and with international law. Permitting the judge to require an asylum claimant to produce corroborating evidence he has or can obtain without leaving the United States is just common sense. If a claimant says, for example, that he fled his country because he received a threatening letter from a government official, the judge would be remiss if he failed to ask to see the letter or at least inquire about what happened to the letter. The asylum protections in the REAL ID Act are vitally important to ensuring the honesty of the asylum system, as well as the security of our Nation and its citizens. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, H.R. 418, and oppose this amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 418, the Real ID Act. The REAL ID Act incorporates four of the 9/11 Commission recommendations that are necessary to effectively protect our constituents from terrorists seeking to exploit loopholes in our immigration system. This bill will close several of those dangerous loopholes. In addition to providing important Federal security guidelines for driver's licenses, the REAL ID Act also includes other important homeland security measures, including the deportability of terrorists, preventing terrorists from gaming the asylum system, and implementing border security measures in San Diego. Currently, the terrorists and their supporters can be kept out of the United States; but as soon as they set foot into the U.S. on tourist visas, we cannot deport them for many of the very same offenses. This hinders our ability to protect Americans from those alien terrorists who have infiltrated the United States. H.R. 418 makes aliens deportable for the same terrorist-related offenses as those that would prevent them from being admitted to the United States in the first place. Another deficiency in current law is based on a flawed understanding of how terrorist organizations operate. The Immigration and Nationality Act now reads that if an alien provides funding or other material support to a terrorist organization, the alien can escape deportation if they can show that he did not know that the funds or support would further the organization's terrorist activity; i.e., his donation did not immediately go to buying explosives. As Kenneth McKune, former associate coordinator for Counterterrorism at the State Department, explained, ``Given the purposes, organizational structure, and clandestine nature of foreign terrorist organizations, it is highly likely that any material support to these organizations will ultimately inure to the benefit of their criminal, terrorist functions, regardless of whether such support was ostensibly intended to support nonviolent, nonterrorist activities.'' Money given to terrorist organizations is fungible. Senator Diane Feinstein has rightly stated that ``I simply do not accept that so- called humanitarian works by terrorist groups can be kept separate from their other operations. I think the money will ultimately go to bombs and bullets rather than babies, or, because money is fungible, it will free up other funds to be used on terrorist activities.'' The REAL ID Act is written so that an alien who provides funds or other material support to a terrorist organization would be deportable unless he did not know and should not reasonably have known that the organization was a terrorist organization. Mr. Chairman, I urge the support and passage of H.R. 418.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 6 and America's Boy Scouts. Unfortunately, the assault on the Boy Scouts of America continues. In the name of tolerance and acceptance, some would force the Department of Defense to abandon America's Boy Scouts. Rather than allow this private organization to continue receiving support from the Department of Defense, they would rather compel the Department of Defense to terminate the relationship between military families and this important quality-of-life program. It is a shame that the U.S. Congress even has to consider this bill, yet here we are actually debating whether such an organization that instills service and integrity in our Nation's boys is worthy of support from the Department of Defense. The Scout's Law says that Scouts must be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. We can only hope that all Americans would ascribe to such a code of morality. Imagine the effect on our culture if all of us resolved to commit to the Boy Scouts Oath. Rather than condemn the Boy Scouts for such a code, this organization deserves our whole-hearted support. In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge the Boy Scouts to remain unwavering in their principles as expressed in the Scout Law and Oath. Likewise, I urge my colleagues to continue to support this fine organization by voting in favor of H. Con. Res. 6.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to wholeheartedly support this common-sense resolution. The U.S. and European Union, as we have heard, established arms embargoes against the People's Republic of China following the June, 1989, Tiananmen Square Massacre. The U.S embargo continues today in light of the widespread human rights abuses that continue under the Communist regime. But the European Union, in a move that can only be described as reckless, is moving to lift its ban on weapons sales. EU states are even today selling China so-called nonlethal technologies that enhance its offensive capabilities. Advanced radar systems sold to China, for example, allow its military to better target U.S. warships and aircraft. For this reason, I introduced in the defense authorization bill last year a provision to prohibit the Defense Department from buying weapons from foreign companies that sell weapons to the People's Republic of China. My measure, which passed the House, also would have made it U.S. policy to deny China defense technology that could threaten the U.S. or destabilize the Western Pacific region. Unfortunately, this provision was dropped in conference as a result of Senate objections. But we are here again today discussing this vitally important issue. I strongly encourage the EU to place international security and human rights ahead of any monetary benefits from selling weapons to China, and I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments from Illinois with regard to his support of the President. It looks like Illinois this year may be in fact in play, the electoral college. But I do want to remind the gentleman that we do have three branches of government, and we have all been sent here to represent our various constituencies with regard to these very important issues of national security. Going back to the letter that I have submitted for the Record from the 9/11 Families for a Secure America, I know that the gentleman is very impassioned about his support for immigration, and I very much appreciate it. We are a Nation of immigrants. But I think it is important for us to refocus on what actually took place on 9/11 and what the American people are asking us to do. The 9/11 Families for a Secure America said, ``Our efforts over the past 3 years to get elected officials to recognize and to address the current immigration crisis have taught us that even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals languish in Congress.'' They do not languish in the House of Representatives, after we defeat this motion to instruct ``because our elected leaders are either blinded by special interests or afraid of being vilified by them.'' Mr. Speaker, if 9/11 repeats itself, and I have said this to our neighbors to the north in Canada who have had representatives from their government, from their legislative bodies, come and speak to us about issues important to immigration, issues important to both of our countries, if the tragedy of 9/11 repeats itself in this country, then my colleague from Illinois and others from Canada and Mexico will long for, will yearn for, the good-old-days when we considered what will then be considered minimalist reforms to our immigration policy. To not require that anyone receive relief under the Convention Against Torture, the gentleman talks about expedited removal and the concern that he has with regard for that. Our amendment changed the underlying bill to allow for Convention Against Torture and asylum claims to go ahead unimpeded by the new provision that calls for expedited removal. So we will not be sending individuals who have a very reasonable fear of being tortured and abused in their home countries if they are returned. Those that really do have a reason to fear for their safety in another country and for their abuse there will be able to obtain relief in this country. But for those that abuse the immigration process, as the 19 did who perpetrated 9/11, we must maintain these immigration provisions in the bill so that we deal with that very important problem and we do not allow 9/11 to repeat itself and do not come to a point in the future where the American people require us to do much more difficult things, make much more difficult decisions, and cause us to greatly restrict the influx of immigrants into our country. In the words of families affected most directly by 9/11, these are reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals. They should not be stripped out. I beg my colleagues not to vote for the motion to instruct, but in fact vote against the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I can just speak briefly about the gentleman's comments with regard to an individual who is in this country that presents only a matricula consular card for identification, according to former intelligence director for the FBI, Steve McCraw, his testimony before our subcommittee said that really the only people that need to use a matricula consular exclusively for identification purposes are illegal aliens, simply because those that are in the country, that are present in the country legally, have other forms of secured documentation such as a passport or a visa or the like. But the gentleman suggested in his comments that if a person supplies exclusively a matricula consular card to a law enforcement agent that they will be immediately deported. Mr. Speaker, they will not be immediately deported if the gentleman's other provisions in this motion to instruct are taken out, and that is portion 3006, which calls for expedited removal. If the gentleman is saying that he wants those people immediately deported that only supply a matricula consular card for identification, I would accept, under unanimous consent, to have section 3006 stripped out of his motion to instruct. I do not think that is going to happen because the gentleman does wish to remove expedited removal provision from the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to talk specifically about one of the sections that are being considered for removal as a result of the motion to instruct, section 3005, which addresses the importance of verifiable documentation for aliens and their identification. First of all, we need to understand what the section does not do. It does not prevent aliens from presenting other foreign documents to open bank accounts in this country. And it does not prevent aliens from presenting other documents in addition to the documents listed. Thus, an alien could also present a driver's license so long as the alien presents a designated document. What the section does do, however, it requires aliens to present secure documents. It prevents the aliens from using consular identification cards, as we have heard about earlier, issued by foreign agents to aliens present in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that those foreign agents in the United States issue them only to their nationals, but we will learn later that that is in fact not the case, and that they will issue them for purposes of getting into the secure sections of airports or onto Federal facilities. Those documents should be secure, and they should be safe from fraud. The FBI has told our Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims that the most commonly issued of those documents is the Mexican matricula consular. The matricula consular has been accepted in this country for over 100 years, documentation that would allow a Mexican citizen while legally present in the United States to have contact information with their government, namely, a consular office in the United States. That has happened for, as I said, a long time in this country. But the concern that we have is the newly issued Mexican matricula consular is not reliable. It is vulnerable to forgery and, most significantly, poses a terrorist threat. We had then Assistant Director of the FBI's Office of Intelligence Steve McCraw testify before our committee. He concluded that domestic acceptance of the matricula cards in the United States poses a law enforcement and national security risk. He stated that the criminal threat stems from the fact that the matriculas can be a perfect breeder document for establishing a false identity which can facilitate a wide range of crimes, including money laundering. He told of individuals who were arrested with multiple matriculas, each with the same photo but different names, and some of whom had matching driver's licenses to go with the identities proposed on the matricula cards. He concluded that the terrorist threat posed by these cards is the ``most worrisome'' to the FBI. He went on to say, ``The ability of foreign nationals to use foreign cards to create a well-documented but fictitious identity in the United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists, those watch lists that we think are going to save us from the next round of 9/11 attacks. But these kind of cards will actually keep individuals from being cross-referenced on these lists. These lists are disseminated to local police officers.'' Nor is the danger posed by those documents only as breeder documents. For other documentation, notwithstanding their vulnerability to fraud and abuse, consular ID cards can be presented to board an airliner. We know of cases like that. I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that it is suggested that these cards, especially the matricula consular, they are the most prevalent of the consular ID cards, but quite honestly, there are several foreign governments who are witnessing, observing the success of the issuance and acceptance of these consular identification cards by Mexico, the matricula consular, and they seek to follow them in issuing their own. They are supposed to go to individuals who are nationals of these particular respective foreign governments. But we know that these cards have been issued to non-Mexican nationals in the United States, including at least one Iranian. Mr. Speaker, at the U.S. Air Force Academy, during a particular set of arrests, employees with matricula cards were found to be employees of the Air Force Academy, but they were not Mexican nationals. They were Guatemalans. The Mexican government had either issued a matricula consular to a non-national or these cards had been so easily created by fraudulent means that they were able to obtain cards very similar to the real cards. It is critical, Mr. Speaker, that these insecure documents not be accepted for identification purposes to enter secure areas, such as boarding an airplane. That is why we cannot strip out any of the provisions in title III and especially section 3005. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip of the House.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion on H.R. 10, the legislation that has been considered by the House over the last several days, and this motion to instruct would strike several provisions in the legislation that are vitally important to securing the American people. But, Mr. Speaker, I would offer into the Record a letter by a group called the 9/11 Families for a Secure America. The letter was written to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary, and it is made up of a group of families who lost loved ones or were victimized on September 11 as a result of the attacks on our country. No one could speak more eloquently than they about the need for change to our immigration policy in that they write: ``We are writing to express the support and thanks of 9/11 Families for a Secure America for the provisions in title 3 of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act,'' and those are the provisions that this motion to instruct would seek to eliminate. Reading further, ``These provisions would go a long way toward closing the loopholes that allowed 19 terrorists, all of whom had violated our immigration laws in one way or another, to enter and move freely around our country while they honed their plot to murder our loved ones. ``We are heartened by the inclusion in the bill of provisions that require both U.S. citizens and aliens to prove their identity upon entry with secure, verifiable documents, preclude acceptance by Federal employees of consular ID cards, insist that DHS, Department of Homeland Security, expand its use of expedited removal and prevent illegal aliens from abusing our judicial process to delay deportation and increase the number of the Border Patrol and ICE, or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, agents. ``All of these provisions fall well within the scope of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and so should be enacted and implemented as quickly as possible. ``Our efforts over the past 3 years to get elected officials to recognize and address the current immigration crisis have taught us that even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals languish in Congress because our elected leaders are either blinded by special interests or afraid of being vilified by them. We commend you and the House Republican leadership for your willingness to address immigration reform in H.R. 10 while the sponsors of every other so- called 9/11 bill completely ignored it. ``It is incomprehensible to us that any reasonable person could believe that immigration reform plays no legitimate role in our response to the attacks. We are outraged that terrorists and murderers are able to frustrate efforts to deport them by claiming that they will be tortured upon being returned home. Even worse, when they have committed their heinous crimes overseas and are thus not easily prosecutable here in America, their use of the Convention Against Torture allows them to escape justice. ``We are strongly supportive of section 3031 and section 3032 of H.R. 10, which would end this intolerable abuse of our immigration laws. Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the last 3 years that they would honor our loved ones who were murdered 3 years ago by enacting reforms to ensure that Americans will never again face the same horror. We hope you will honor those promises by supporting the immigration provisions already in the bill and by opposing any efforts to protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart our families on September 11, 2001. ``Sincerely, the Board of Directors of 9/11 Families For a Secure America.'' Mr. Speaker, I do not know of anyone who can more eloquently speak to the importance of maintaining these provisions in the House bill in H.R. 10, when in other proposals, as the families would say themselves, that every other so-called 9/11 bill has completely ignored the central focus of the 9/11 tragedy, which is that individuals from outside our country came into our country, abused the process, and murdered our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I submit the letter I read earlier for the Record. 9/11 Families for a Secure America, New York, NY, September 28, 2004. Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: We are writing to express the support and thanks of 9/11 Families for a Secure America for the provisions in Title III of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. These provisions would go a long way toward closing the loopholes that allowed 19 terrorists--all of whom had violated our immigration laws in one way or another--to enter and move freely around our country while they honed their plot to murder our loved ones. We strongly urge the Members of the Judiciary Committee to retain the immigration provisions included in H.R. 10. We believe that implementation of Title III would improve homeland security dramatically and help to ensure that no other American families have to experience the devastating grief, the debilitating loss, and the overwhelming rage that we have known every day for more than three years now. We are heartened by the inclusion in the bill of provisions that: require both U.S. citizens and aliens to prove their identity upon entry with secure, verifiable documents; preclude acceptance by Federal employees of consular ID cards; insist that DHS expand its use of expedited removal and prevent illegal aliens from abusing our judicial process to delay deportation; and increase the numbers of Border Patrol and ICE agents. All of these provisions fall well within the scope of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and so should be enacted and implemented as quickly as possible. Our efforts over the past three years to get elected officials to recognize and address the current immigration crisis have taught us that even the most reasonable and sensible immigration reform proposals languish in Congress because our elected leaders are either blinded by special interests or afraid of being vilified by them. We commend you and the House Republican Leadership for your willingness to address immigration reform in H.R. 10, while the sponsors of every other so-called ``9/ 11 bill'' completely ignored it. It is incomprehensible to us that any reasonable person could believe that immigration reform plays no legitimate role in our response to the attacks. We are outraged that terrorists and murderers are able to frustrate efforts to deport them by claiming that they will be tortured upon being returned home. Even worse, when they have committed their heinous crimes overseas and are thus not easily prosecutable here in America, their use of the Convention Against Torture allows them to escape justice. We are strongly supportive of sections 3031 and sections 3032 of H.R. 10, which would end this intolerable abuse of our immigration laws. There is, however, one glaring omission in H.R. 10. The 9/ 11 Commission specifically recommended enhanced cooperation with and training of state and local law enforcement officers on immigration law, yet H.R. 10 includes no mention of this recommendation. We hope you will bring up the CLEAR Act, H.R. 2671, for a full committee markup as soon as possible in order to complete the 9/11 Commission's work. Members of Congress have promised us repeatedly over the last three years that they would honor our loved ones who were murdered three years ago by enacting reforms to ensure that Americans will never again face the same horror. We hope you will honor those promises by supporting the immigration provisions already in the bill and by opposing any effort to protect a status quo that aided the murderers who tore apart our families on September 11, 2001. Sincerely, Board of Directors, 9/11 Families for a Secure America. Peter Gadiel & Jan Gadiel, Kent, CT, Parents of James, age 23, WTC, North Tower, 103rd Floor. Monica Gabrielle, North Haven, CT, Wife of Rich Gabrielle, WTC, South Tower. Will Sekzer, Detective Sergeant (retired) NYPD, Sunnyside, NY, Father of Jason, age 31, WTC, North Tower, 105th Floor. Diana Stewart, New Jersey, only wife of Michael Stewart. Bill Doyle, Staten Island, NY, Father of Joseph. Sally Regenhard, Al Regenhard (Detective Sergeant, NYPD, Retired), Parents of Firefighter Christian Regenhard, Bronx,

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

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary have until November 19, 2004, to file a supplemental report on H.R. 10.

Mr. HOSTETTLER

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) in opposing this amendment. We must remember that terrorists continually try to abuse our asylum system. For example, in 1993, Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two CIA employees at CIA headquarters and Ramzi Yousef masterminded the first World Trade Center attack after they were free after applying for asylum. Just weeks ago, Shahawar Matin Siraj was arrested in New York City for plotting to bomb a subway station. Siraj was freed after applying for asylum. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) stated, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a body of circuit law that is essentially preventing immigration judges from finding that asylum applicants are lying by severely limiting the factors, such as their inconsistencies and demeanor, that the immigration judge can consider in finding aliens untruthful. Given that government attorneys are not allowed to ask the foreign government about the facts regarding the asylum claimants, about the only evidence available to the government on which to deny an asylum application is the perceived truthfulness of the applicant's testimony. If a criminal jury can sentence a United States citizen who is a criminal defendant to life imprisonment or execution based on their not believing the American citizen's defendant's story, certainly an immigration judge can deny an alien asylum on the same basis. The bill would overturn this ridiculous precedent used by the Ninth Circuit. The bill provides a list of factors that an immigration judge can consider in determining truthfulness. Oppose the Smith amendment.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding me this time. I join the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) in opposing this amendment, which would take a vital tool out of the hands of our Border Patrol in keeping foreign terrorists out of the United States. As it is distressingly easy for aliens to illegally cross our borders, it would also be relatively easy for terrorists to enter. The Border Patrol recently released data that in just the period from last October through this June, over 44,000 non-Mexican aliens were caught trying to cross the northern or southern borders, including eight from Afghanistan, six from Algeria, 13 from Egypt, 20 from Indonesia, 10 from Iran, 55 from Israel, 122 from Pakistan, six from Saudi Arabia, six from Syria, 22 from Turkey, and two from Yemen. A South African woman alleged to be a terrorist on the terrorist watch list recently indicated that she had crossed the border illegally from Mexico. What happens to these aliens when they are intercepted? They go through a ``revolving door'' when we release them because of a lack of detention space. Then we hold out some desperate hope that they will appear for their immigration court hearings months afterward. However, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General found that the INS was not able to remove 87 percent of aliens with final orders of removal who were not detained. And, worse yet, 94 percent of nondetained aliens from state sponsors of terrorism who had final removal orders could not be located for their deportation. In an age of terrorism, this is just unacceptable. There is no good reason not to subject illegal aliens who have crossed the border illegally to immediate deportation. These aliens, if they have been in the U.S. less than 10 years, have no right to seek cancellation of removal unless they are making a claim of asylum. Once again, unless they are making a claim of asylum and can show a credible fear of persecution, there is no reason not to subject them to expedited removal. And, in fact, the amendment that just recently passed in the House, previously, removes the 1-year limitation in the base bill for convention against torture and asylum relief. So those who seek relief from convention against torture and for asylum will not be harmed by the bill. So the amendment must be rejected so that we can allow for the expedited removal of individuals who would do us harm. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.