Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), distinguished member of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will be able to join with the gentleman on his purpose to vet and to ensure that those who are receiving immigration benefits are vetted and screened properly and that any allegations of fraud be investigated. I do not think anyone has come to this floor to divide on the question of ensuring that the homeland is protected. That means that we are screening more carefully the visas as individuals are requesting to come into the country. We have implemented a number of new efforts to ensure that we are in fact keeping terrorists away from the United States. But, again, the concerns that I have are clearly that the resources are not there in order to do the vetting that the gentleman is speaking of. And the question is whether or not benefits will be held up while we are attempting to vet without the necessary resources. I would hope as this amendment makes its way through the Congress that we will find a way to also push the Department of Homeland Security, push the Federal Government to comply with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and put in place the procedures and the dollars that it takes to make the system work. As I indicated to you, background checks and the attendant investigations are important. It is important for the government to identify and pursue the tiny handful of individuals who really come to do us harm. But we have to separate the overwhelming majority who wish only to contribute to this country. We want reform. We have to reform the process. But the solution is to require the multiple agencies involved to put in place a workable system. That is my concern with the gentleman's amendment. But I would simply hope that, as we look for solutions, we can work together for a workable solution and a working system to make his plan work. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to Mr. Westmoreland, frankly, I wish that we could have worked together on the underlying problems of this legislation, which is comprehensive immigration reform. But the problem here is there were no caps in the underlying bill. We had no hearings. We do not know if these are the best numbers. They could be stronger. I wish you would join me on Protect American Jobs, using some of these resources to provide training for American workers, to be able to outreach to American workers. This is a cap with no hearings, no standards, not knowing whether this is punitive enough. And certainly the inequity between big companies and small companies makes this amendment somewhat doubtful. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I will not oppose this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's intent on trying to fix a problem that clearly needs to be fixed. We do not dispute the idea that individuals applying for and receiving an immigration benefit should be properly vetted and screened and that any and all allegations of fraud should be thoroughly investigated, as I indicated earlier when I thanked Mr. Sensenbrenner for joining me in an amendment that would create a single database for fraudulent documents and have reports made back to Congress on the trends. I believe that individuals should be vetted and screened and that any and all allegations of fraud should be thoroughly investigated, but the problem is various agencies involved have been incredibly negligent in ensuring that the checks and investigations are performed in a timely fashion. Moreover, their respective databases are ripe with erroneous information, and for the most part, they are still inoperable. That speaks to the increasing need of resources to improve our technology and to encourage and push the Federal Government to do its job. This amendment, however, seeks to address the problem from the wrong angle. Penalizing aliens by keeping them in limbo is no solution to the problem. Indeed, our national security is further compromised by the government's failure to timely vet these individuals. I would like to work with the gentleman on increasing the resources and giving a protracted time frame for these issues to be worked out. Background checks are important, and the attendant investigations are important to enable our government to identify and pursue the tiny handful of immigrants and visitors who wish to do us harm. We want to keep those who want to do us harm out; and those who are in, we want to catch them and prosecute them and penalize them. We want to separate them from the overwhelming majority who wish only to contribute to this country, who come here for economic reasons and to support themselves and their families. So I would just suggest to the gentleman, if he wants to reform the process, the solution is to require that the multiple agencies involved put in place a workable system for conducting background checks and fraud investigations in a manner that is timely, accurate and secure and to provide them with the necessary resources to do so. The gentleman's amendment has good intentions, and I support generally the amendment, but it has a number of problems, and so I would ask the gentleman to reconsider it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this amendment, which would add human trafficking, human smuggling to the list of predicate acts under the Federal money laundering statute. Let me just say that what Mr. Shadegg has just articulated is a plague on our society across America. I have worked extensively on human trafficking issues and see them often repeated in our own jurisdictions in Texas. It is actually 20th-century human bondage. And the tragedy is that many of these individuals are women, young women, who are forced to come to the United States and are abused and utilized not only in areas of prostitution but also areas of hard work where they are not able to receive adequate compensation. According to the State Department, the State Department estimates between 15,000 and 20,000 people are trafficked into the United States every year. Worldwide there are approximately 600,000 to 800,000 people trafficked across international borders every year. Victims of human trafficking are often forced into prostitution, hard labor, child soldiering, and other forms of involuntary servitude. In effect, they become slaves. It is shameful to say that this occurs in the United States. It is shameful to say that it is still going on in the 21st century. But I believe if we cut off the money supply of human traffickers, charging them with money laundering, it is a reasonable step to take in addressing this problem. This is not the same offense, but we have seen the devastation of alien smuggling when we lost large numbers of those undocumented individuals who came here for an economic reason who lost their lives at the hands of unscrupulous smugglers. This is similar, where we bring people in under false pretenses and we hold them as human slaves. So I think this amendment has the purpose of helping to diminish that very vicious set of circumstances. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it seems we are both asking for the support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my simple point is to suggest to the distinguished author of the amendment that even aliens have a form of due process. What he simply is trying to do is to get the young man who is the painter who has a wife and family at home and then he is immediately arrested with no rights of due process. In addition, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee has made a very good point: we do not have an exit program right now in the US-VISIT program. We do not have the resources; we do not have the space for the lanes. I would simply say we are unable to do such.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with my distinguished colleague, it is a solemn time; it is a time of commitment. Many of us who have participated in these oaths of allegiance taken by throngs of new citizens in our jurisdictions have seen the emotion, the tears, the commitment, the celebration, the family commitment and the commitment to this Nation. There has been no evidence that my good friend can show to suggest that the allegiance as it is now written and stated is not sacred. There is no evidence in purpose for it to be codified in law because it has fragility to it, if you will. I raise the point with my colleagues, when we have friendly nations like Israel, are we to suggest that their commitment to the United States is any less, that they would refuse to fight alongside any Americans to defend our honor? Is there a reason to deny them the commitment to a homeland that may have a particular uniqueness to them, their family heritage, but yet they are here in the United States and they would not refuse to fight for our honor and dignity? This amendment seems to be without purpose, and certainly for those countries where the person who is renouncing their citizenship is then given to be allowed to have their name notified at that embassy, what happens to those members or their families left behind? I think that the gentleman may have good intentions, but, frankly, I do not think that we have found any, if you will, problem with the existence in the process of the oath of renunciation and allegiance; and I would just offer to say that when you go and see the new citizens not only pledge to the flag of the United States but pledge allegiance, you know that they are committed to the virtues and values of this country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to remind my colleagues that we are a Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws. I think it is important when we pass legislation that we have a basis, a purpose. I do not think the gentleman can document that anyone who has taken this oath and because they have a dual citizenship that they have been any less a citizen. John F. Kennedy said everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life. I think this oath stands on its own merits, and, frankly, I believe that we jeopardize our friends, those who have come to this country with good intentions, when we cause them to have to be reported to their embassy and jeopardize their families' lives. I would hope we would be sensitive to that, and I would ask my colleagues to consider that as they consider this amendment and vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman. I rise with a humble spirit to salute the people of Iraq who have shown us the ability for a successful election and ask that we honor and support our troops, but yet have an open and full debate on the redeployment of our troops on the floor of the House regarding Iraq. General Leave

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, sometime ago, Mr. Speaker, President John F. Kennedy, himself the grandson of Irish immigrants, summed up this blend of the old and the new when he called America a society of immigrants, each of whom had begun life anew on an equal footing. This is the secret of America, a Nation of people with a fresh memory of old traditions who dare to explore new frontiers. He further said: Everywhere immigrants have enriched and strengthened the fabric of American life. And then Franklin Delano Roosevelt reminded us, remember, remember always, that all of us are descended from immigrants. I had hoped as we began our journey on a very important task, as reflected in the work we have done over the last 2 days, on border security and immigration reform, that we would have returned to our values, recognizing that this Nation is a Nation of immigrants as well as a Nation of laws. I would have hoped that we would have constructed a piece of legislation that garnered the very essence of the instructions of the 9/11 Commission; that we would have taken this time to move from the Ds and Fs of which this Nation was graded some 10 days by the 9/11 Commission and actually incurred the appreciation of the Nation by doing real border security, real border enforcement and real immigration reform. But, unfortunately, the legislative initiative that has just passed, the Border Protection Act, really does not answer the question of the need for immigration reform. In fact, unlike the words of President John F. Kennedy where we recognize that immigration can enrich this country and where we recognize the contributions of immigrants, we seek now to shut the door for a pathway of earned access to legalization. We ignore the fact that immigrants who are working in a variety of jobs have homes and pay taxes, have children in school, and have the hopes and dreams of the immigrants of yesteryear. I think it is important that we turn back the clock and start immigration reform again; that we remember that we cannot demonize or make criminal every single undocumented immigrant, that we must provide our border patrol resources what they need, the helicopters, power boats, laptop computers, night goggles in order to enforce the border. We must enforce the laws that are already on the books. For example, it is a criminal act to enter the country without inspection. We have to have the resources to enforce those laws. But it does not make sense to deny those individuals within our borders due process. And then I would have hoped that a real immigration reform bill would have had a singular piece of protecting American jobs, realizing that the heart of this country's economy and the heart of America is in America's working people. And we could have taken this particular legislation and provided, as the Save America Comprehensive Legislation H.R. 2092, a vehicle to garner the fees that are paid by immigrants and invest them in the educational training of America and the protecting of American jobs and the securing of American jobs. I believe there should be employer sanctions, but there cannot be effective employer sanctions unless we develop a singular database that is integrated, consistent and accurate. Many of the amendments would suggest that an employer verify who he or she hired. That is the right thing to do. In fact, I voted for the Gonzalez amendment which would fine certain employers $50,000 so that those dollars could be used to reinvest in our community hospitals and schools to pay for some of the services that are used by those that may not be in status. But, frankly, we cannot have that verification system without an even database. And so it is important to note that, if we do border enforcement or immigration reform, we must have the dollars and the commitment, and that is not here in the present administration and the present structure that we are in. This legislation is, I think, falling on its own weight. As it makes its way to the United States Senate, it is clear that other body is not moving on such legislation at this time. And, in fact, there is great conflict between a pathway to legalization and the question of enforcement. We believe in enforcement, but not enforcement only. And you can ask any American who looks at the question of immigration, Mr. Speaker, and they want comprehensive immigration reform that understands that there are immigrants who come here for economic reasons, but we must keep those out that come here to do us harm. Find a way for pathways to legalization, and find a way to enforce the Nation's borders.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me make a simple statement. This is legal immigration; that is what we are trying to promote here in this Congress. The State Department has already testified that this program is a program that is improved, and it works internationally to bring in our developing nations as friends of the United States.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have to join the gentleman from Massachusetts on his concern and dismay, frustration, and I think that outrage that the opportunity for a Democratic substitute, first of all, to express some of the failures of this particular underlying bill and as well the opportunities to improve this legislation seemingly has been denied. I speak from a particularly unique perspective, Mr. Speaker, because my district contained Enron, and the thousands of employees that, within hours of the bankruptcy filing by Enron, lost not only their jobs but their lives, their homes and their future. I cannot tell you the number of individuals in Houston and the surrounding areas and other areas that were impacted, lost their lives, actually died because of the absolute oppression and outrage and the impact of what happened to them. And then we speak to the pensions and the investment of course in company stock. But this particular bill as it relates to the pension issue just does not go far enough because what it happens to do is it emphasizes the pension crisis, and it causes many of the companies, and I think those who are listening beyond the borders of this particular Chamber should understand that this bill that will be voted on today really causes companies to freeze or abandon your pension plans. This does not encourage investment in your pension plans. It also denies the necessary flexibility and relief for airlines that unfortunately did not get in this bill, but is in the Senate bill. Any of us who fly the Nation's airways know that the flight attendants are constantly saying that we, after 20 years and 30 years, are being forced to give up our pension rights. Why could we not come to the floor of the House and have a better plan? This, of course, provides a funding crisis that is far worse. It increases the debt by $9 billion. It causes companies, it does not stop companies from dumping underfunded pension plans onto taxpayers. And so, if you want to look into the eyes of despair, just follow the track of Enron when those particular employees who had bought into the seriousness and the depth of commitment called family that Enron represented, and in a matter of a pen, in the matter of 48 hours, they were not only dumped, their pensions were dumped and they had nothing. What we should be doing in this instance is then ensuring and shoring up those liabilities or the potential of those liabilities and the negative impact it would have on people who work so very hard. I would ask my colleagues, we have enough time. There is time to continue this debate and to send this particular underlying bill back. There is time to make this bill compatible with the Senate before it even leaves the House. There is time, I guess if we wanted to waive the points of order, to allow a democratic substitute. But this is not the route that we should be taking. And in the name of those who we pretended to be concerned about, not only the Enron employees who spent almost 2 years with us here in the United States Congress, but other employees and workers around America, I would ask my colleagues to send this bill back and make a better bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to urge President Bush to issue a proclamation for the observance of an American Jewish history month. I further urge all Americans to share in this commemoration to have a greater appreciation for the role the Jewish American community has had in helping to defend and further the liberties and freedom of all Americans. In 1654, Jewish refugees from Brazil arrived on North American shores and formally established North America's first Jewish community in New Amsterdam, now New York City. America welcomed Jews among the millions of immigrants that streamed through our Nation's gates. The waves of Jewish immigrants arriving in America helped shape our great Nation. Jewish immigration to America throughout the last 350 years brought with it legions of notable researchers, lawyers, statesmen, inventors, entertainers, artists, scientists, authors, musicians, doctors, ethicists, entrepreneurs and spiritual leaders--men and women who substantially transformed this nation and its urban communities. In this month of observance of American Jewish history, I think it is also important that we also focus on our country's relationship with Israel. Israel has been one of our strongest and most committed allies since its conception in 1948. For 50 years, the United States and Israel have worked closely to pursue peace in the Middle East. I strongly believe that the dream of peace and stability in the Middle East can become a reality within our lifetime. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and urge President Bush to issue a proclamation for the observance of an American Jewish history month. A proclamation by the President will honor the contributions of American Jews throughout our nation's history, but also reiterate the continued importance of our taking an active role in the peace process in the Middle East. We have both an obligation and a vested interest in supporting Israel in its road to secure itself in peaceful, stable, and democratic region. I will leave you with a quote from one of the most famous Jewish American immigrants, Albert Einstein. He said ``He who cherishes the values of culture cannot fail to be a pacifist.'' Let's urge the President to reaffirm the value of the Jewish American Culture to the United States, and in doing so take one small step towards peace in the region.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee for yielding me time, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, very much for allowing me the opportunity to cast this debate hopefully in as broad a light as it possibly can be cast. I would like to suggest that members of the Homeland Security Committee and Committee on the Judiciary all have participated in what we call the ``heavy lifting.'' As a member of both committees, I know that there are individuals, well intentioned, who had come together to try to construct, if you will, a reasonable response to this pending and ongoing concern that Americans have expressed. But let me tell you why this rule is fractured and why the underlying bill needs to be returned back to not only the Rules Committee but the committee in order to put together for America the real comprehensive immigration reform that I hope legislators will bring to the floor of the House, as opposed to political sound bites. It is well known that America is asking for the enforcement of our immigration laws, but they are not asking for enforcement only. They want a comprehensive reform package that provides a pathway to citizenship and legalization and enforcement. As someone who comes from a border State, and particularly Texas, I can assure you that there is no divide amongst many Members on the needs for security and protection at the border. It was our State that experienced the viciousness and the seriousness of the Victoria deaths. Out of that particular tragedy I authored alien smuggling legislation which I am proud to say was included in the 9/11 legislation passed almost a year ago. We are very serious about border security, but this underlying bill does not speak to border security. What it does do is it provides the enormous burden of unfunded mandates and it is impracticable. It cannot work. What it does, Mr. Speaker, and you will hear us say this over and over again today, it criminalizes 11 million individuals, as the number seems to be of undocumented individuals, in this country. That means that they may be here, taxpayers, children in school, recognizing that they may have come to this particular place undocumented. But it criminalizes them by their very presence. That means they have to be mandatorily put in jail. Whether you are an elderly person, whether you are a child, you have to be mandatorily put in jail. The so-called ``employer verification program'' was a pilot program. There is no guarantee in this bill for full funding for that, nor is there a guarantee that the data base is secure enough that the employers can rely upon it. I believe employers should verify who they are employing, but they cannot do it with a system that is fractured and is not funded the way it should be funded. This bill requires a lot of work and the work is that we must combine comprehensive immigration reform. We must also address the question very quickly, Mr. Speaker, of giving the right equipment to border patrol agents. None of that is in there: night goggles, computers, helicopters, power boats. In the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking member, and myself offered an amendment that would equip the border patrol agents as they should be. You ask one American, Do you want your border patrol agents to have the right uniforms, the right ID, and the right equipment? They cannot function without helicopters, power boats, night goggles, computers and other technology to help them secure the border, nor can they work without doubling or tripling the number of border patrol agents. That is why this bill is fractured. So I conclude by simply saying, respond to what America is asking us to do: comprehensive immigration reform, earned access to legalization and, as well strong, strong enforcement.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, what disappoints me most on this legislation is, the men and women that are on the front lines, the Border Patrol agents, are the most left out of this particular legislative vehicle. Quickly, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that an amendment that was offered by myself and Mr. Thompson, the ranking member, specifically gives tools to those Border Patrol agents, who I believe are the people that are entrusted with the responsibility of securing the borders by the American people. We do not have aircraft and watercraft, which are valuable tools. We do not have the helicopters that are necessary. We do not have the necessary Border Patrol agents, which in my amendment to H.R. 4044, the bill that we offered, the homeland security legislation, we would have added 10,000 more agents. We would have added provisions about recruitment and retention problems so that we would have an experienced Border Patrol agency. Mr. Chairman, my friend, Mr. Reyes, indicated the importance of a secure homeland with the right kind of personnel. We would have raised the base pay for a journey level Border Patrol agent to a GS-13. We leave out the very men and women on the front lines, and I would hope we will go back and fix this legislation to do that.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman very much. Let me just say, Mr. Johnson is a good friend from Texas, and I know that this sense of Congress reflects the attitude of the people of Texas and America that we should enforce the immigration laws. I am going to enthusiastically join and support him on this idea of enforcing the Nation's immigration laws. But what I do want to indicate is that this is building on some enforcement laws that we have had, and that is that, over the years, we have enacted 20 enforcement laws in the last 20-years. We have increased the Border Patrol budget by a factor of 10, but it has not been enough. We have tripled the number of agents, but we need to do more, and we have created a Department of Homeland Security. What we have not been able to do is write real, if you will, effective immigration law that brings in the comprehensive nature of immigration law which provides, if you will, an earned access to legalization and the building up and the securing of our borders by the enhancement of our Border Patrol agents, for example, scholarships, recruitment. There is another amendment coming up about making sure that clothing comes from the right country. I think this is a good amendment, but I think that we can do better by looking at this from a comprehensive perspective and building and writing the kinds of laws that would be effective, if you will, to ensure that we are enforcing those laws.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I will not oppose it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, to the distinguished gentleman that offered the amendment, that is why we have suggested that we can work on these issues in a bipartisan manner. I think you have a very reasonable amendment, and might I just say that the National Border Patrol Council supports this amendment because it involves officer and public safety. Since early last year, the Border Patrol uniforms, including the patches, the identifying patches, have been made outside of the country. It would be quite simple for someone to bribe a low-paid factory worker or truck driver in order to procure a quantity of uniforms for the purpose of masquerading as a Border Patrol agent. Obviously this makes sense, and that is why part of the problem with the underlying bill is, frankly, that it is weighted down by the criminalizing of the undocumented and not focusing on the criminalizing of the criminals. This, in fact, is a very instructive amendment because it helps to ensure the sanctity of the Border Patrol officers' uniform and their work. Inasmuch as the Border Patrol's work is done at night and low-light surroundings, it would be nearly impossible for the genuine Border Patrol agents to spot the imposters until they were close enough to harm the agents if they had a false uniform. Likewise, members of the public could easily be fooled into believing that the imposters had authority to stop and question them, and they could perpetrate crimes. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from California (Mr. Baca).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the fact that we could be doing more on this bill. Clearly, we want our Border Patrol agents to be well equipped and well uniformed. That is the missing part of this bill. The uniform ``Made in the USA'' is a good statement to make, but you cannot have Border Patrol agents without power boats, helicopters, night goggles, computers; and you cannot have them without recruitment, scholarship, and increased numbers to secure the border. That is what we should be doing with the underlying bill, but I do support the amendment and just wish we could do more.