Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, just two points. I go to the swearing in of the new citizens all the time, and I will say that when the oath, the part that comes ``renounce absolutely any abjure absolutely foreign prince potentate,'' it is pretty clear that they do not know what a potentate is, and I will bet you a lot of Members of this body do not know, either. So to freeze this language, I think, is a mistake. Number two, there is another issue. To report back to governments when they get citizenship is going to be a risky venture for some. If we have to tell the Cuban Government that one of their former citizens has become one of our citizens, we put their relatives at risk to the Castro regime. I would like to also note that there are some countries that permit dual citizenship. Among them, Israel. I really do not want to be part of an effort to tell Americans who also have Israeli citizenship that they have to renounce that. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the GAO report identifies at tremendous length the problems with this system in the administration of the system. I would further draw the attention of all my colleagues to this report. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the problems caused by the automated employment verification system. However, I want to point out that this amendment will not fix the problems with the Employment Eligibility Verification System, even though this underlying bill will require all employers and employees to use the system. The GAO has already told us, at the request of Mr. Sensenbrenner as a matter of fact, that the basic pilot program is not ready for widespread use, that the DHS system is badly flawed, that it is unable to detect identity fraud; and this report, after the fact, is not going to change that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I do.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that in the underlying bill, there are no caps at all. I would direct the attention of the Members to page 152, 153, and section 706 of the underlying bill. There are no caps. I would just like to note once again that we have a failure of administration. Last year, employers were sanctioned for hiring illegal immigrants only three times. So even if we were to change the law, the ineptitude of the administration does not mean that anything will change. I object to this amendment for another reason in addition to what my colleague, Mr. Berman, has indicated. In the underlying bill, there is at least an effort to make some fairness for little companies versus big companies in terms of making a reduction for small companies. But in this case, in this amendment, Wal-Mart would have the same penalty structure as Joe's Pizza. And it seems to me that Wal-Mart and megacompanies, I would just like to note, in the paper Wal-Mart appears to be one of the biggest offenders, going out and hiring large numbers of undocumented people and, by the way, not treating them very well. They would have their sanctions capped, and they would be treated just the same as Joe's Pizza. So I think of this as the Wal-Mart amendment. Let them go ahead and do their dirty deeds with impunity. They will not have to worry. And I will tell my colleagues for a company as big as Wal-Mart, capping the fines at this level is just the cost of doing business. And I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will support this amendment, and I was very sad to hear about the tragic situation that the Members have spoken of where a family was so devastated. I would just like to note that when you look at the current Immigration Nationality Act, that individual should have been deported anyhow. I do not mind changing law, even if it is redundant. I have never fallen prey to the argument that a redundancy is necessarily wrong. But I think it points out some of the discussions we had yesterday. We are working on a law here, but the real issue is the failure of the Bush administration to enforce the current law. If we had the institutional removal program operating the way it used to, this person who killed people while driving drunk would not have been in this country. That person would have been deported. So as I say, I do not object to the amendment. I appreciate the clarification because I think that was an important clarification, but it does once again point out the real ineptitude of the Department. I remember watching just stunned after Hurricane Katrina came and devastated Louisiana and saying how inept is FEMA. I hate to admit it, but many of the elements of the Department of Homeland Security are just as inept as what we saw at that time, and the immigration functions are prime among them. I worry that there are some things in this measure that are completely wrong-headed and there are some things in the bill that make some sense. The things that make sense will not be accomplished because the administration is so poor, they are so inept, they are so pathetic that they actually cannot administer the law. As I say, I commend the gentlewoman and my colleague for bringing this amendment. I will vote for it. But, again, this will not solve the problem, which is basically incompetence in the administration. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. In taking a look at section 203, the application of criminality is actually quite broad. If you are here in the United States holding a student visa, there are requirements, for example, that you take a certain number of units in order to maintain that status. If, for example, you fall below that, and I will say that there are many students who, for one reason or another, one quarter might fall below where they may need to be, you would be in violation of your student visa status. Under the amendment before us, you would not just be disappointing your parents who paid full tuition, you would be committing a misdemeanor. If you are a businessman here and your return flight home is cancelled, causing your visitors visa, your B2 visa, to be expired, not only would you be in technical violation if you were 2 days late to the flight home, but you would also be committing a misdemeanor. I do not think that is a reasonable approach. I also do not think that it has anything to do with keeping our country safer. You know, this debate started yesterday on the floor of the House. But it has been ongoing in the media for quite some time. The John and Ken show in California every day is taking about illegal immigration. And we saw many Members, our friends on the other side of the aisle, touting that they were going to have this tough bill. And then, of course, today, we see that the Republicans are trying to back off on that a little bit. So it is easy to say one thing to the red meat talk shows, but here, of course, we need to make some adjustments. We think the adjustment is misguided, and it is not one that I can support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Currently, illegal presence in the United States is not a crime; it is a civil violation. People who cross the border without inspection commit a crime for improper entry but not an ongoing violation. The government can prosecute you for crossing but not for existing after having done so. This section, section 203, makes virtually any violation of the immigration laws an ongoing criminal act. In one stroke, it would subject the entire undocumented population, estimate by some to be 11 million people, to criminal liability. Now the amendment before us changes the degree of punishment, but it does not alter the underlying issue of criminalizing being alive in the country without documents. I would like to note that, in addition to adults, this would criminalize children who had no decision about coming to the United States. I understand, although, I was not present in the course of the discussion in the Rules Committee, but that one of the Members of the committee raised the issue of an individual, a young student who was 17, who actually thought that he was an American citizen and found out, much to his surprise, that he was not. That young man, under the underlying bill, would be a felon. Under the amendment, he would be a misdemeanant, but in fact, he is not a criminal at all. He is a kid who was brought here by his parents and who is in a bind right now. Making him a criminal is not going to make us any safer. It is not a reasonable thing to do. I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. We will soon discover.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I would just note, according to the State Department Visa Bulletin for next month, really this is primarily numerically the greatest number of individuals who benefit are from the continent of Africa. And because of immigration patterns, this is an important element of an opportunity for the American dream for would-be Americans who are coming from the continent of Africa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. It is interesting that in the face of a massive failure of administration of our border security, the Congress responds not with enhancing the remedies and its personnel so that we can enforce the law, but instead comes up with a bill to dramatically change the law. I mentioned earlier, we have cited and released individuals who never showed up, 80 percent of the time or better. And what did the administration do? They just kept doing it. That is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Well, changing the law is not going to change the fact that this has been a massive failure of administration. Making 11 million people without their papers aggravated felons is not going to remedy the failure of the administration at the border. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) mentioned that there was a provision that could criminalize churches. In fact, it is section 202 in the base bill. It provides that people who assist those who do not have their papers could be guilty of a crime and, in fact, requires the seizure of property. We know that some of our churches that are helping the homeless do not ask for papers when they hand out the soup. In this bill it requires seizure of their church properties. I want to mention another provision I touched on earlier, and that is section 404 of the bill. It does not make any sense at all when we are talking about the need to secure our borders, which every country has a right and an obligation to do, to reinstate the exclusion of legal persons based on the place they were born. There is a sad part of American history. In 1882, the 47th Congress of the United States passed a bill called the Chinese Exclusion Act, and that bill haunted this country, really, into 1943. It provided that people from China could not come. In section 404, we are de facto reinstituting the Chinese Exclusion Act because we are saying that countries that do not cooperate with us, currently the State Department tells me it is China, Vietnam, Ethiopia and Cuba, then we have the ability to exclude people who are born in those countries. Let me just give you an example. I have a lot of Vietnamese Americans in my district. Do you think the Communist government in Vietnam cares if we do not let a refugee from their country into the United States? Do you think that the communists in China really would be concerned if a Chinese citizen was escaping from China, because they are facing a forced abortion in China? Do you think that enhancing the Communist governments of Cuba, Vietnam and China is really about securing our Nation's borders? I think not. This bill is defective in so many ways that a wide number of groups have opposed it. The minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, will submit the list for the Record. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, every country has the right, even the obligation, to control its borders, and that includes the United States of America. Since 9/11, as many have mentioned, that obligation has taken on increased importance and significance, and all of us believe that we need to do a better job. The truth is that the bill before us today really does not do that better job. We all watch TV, and we see the extravagant comments made, and some of them turn out to be correct. There is something called ``catch and release,'' and actually what it is, is individuals who are apprehended as they unlawfully enter the United States are cited and released with the promise that they will appear. It turns out that over 80 percent of the people who promise to appear do not show up. Now, when I was in local government, we had a failure-to-appear rate in single digits. We were alarmed at that. But even though the administration has seen this rate, they have not stopped doing it. Does this bill order the administration to go out and find those people that fail to appear and bring them in for processing to be deported or whatever the law requires? No, it does not. When I was in local government, we would have individuals who were undocumented, without papers, who committed a crime, and they would be in our jail. And every week, the Immigration Service would come, and they would take those people away from our jail after their sentences were served, and they would deport them, which we thought was a pretty good deal. Recently, the ball has been dropped on that score. And so we have got people who have committed crimes, who should be deported, and they are not being deported. And sometimes they are being released from jail. Does this bill tell the administration to go out and find those people and bring them in, ready to be deported, as the law provides? No, it does not. It does not. Does it order the administration to enhance its efforts so that criminals who are in jails who are supposed to be brought in for deportation are brought in? No, it does not do that either. It does not increase the resources. And it does some things that I think are quite weird and unfortunate. I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee, and I have mentioned section 404 in both committees. Section 404 allows for the exclusion of legal residents if they were born in the following countries: China, Vietnam, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Eritrea or Laos. Why is that? Those countries refuse to accept or unreasonably delay the acceptance of people whom we deport. The answer is not to exclude legal residents who were born in those countries. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I will have further comments as the day proceeds.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment, I would note that we will support this amendment, and I would also like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, every country has a right to control its borders to regulate who enters, and that includes the United States of America. Several speakers have mentioned that this obligation or right has been elevated since 9/11, and I think we all acknowledge that is true. Unfortunately, the administration has completely dropped the ball when it comes to regulation of those entering the United States without authorization. I want to talk about just one item, which is the citation and release of individuals who are apprehended, who then promise to appear for their proceedings and then promptly disappear. The failure-to-appear rate appears to be in excess of 80 percent. We have heard psychologists say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If so, the administration has lost its mind because this citation release program has not resulted in individuals appearing as promised. Does this bill do anything about that, about the hundreds of thousands of individuals who are in America who made a promise to appear? Unfortunately, no, it does not. Now, I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, and I have gone through this bill in some detail. There are some things that have absolutely nothing to do with unlawful immigration. Section 404 of the act is something I want to mention because it is going to be important to a lot of Americans. This provision provides that the Secretary may deny admission to any person from countries that unreasonably delay or deny repatriation of citizens whom we have ordered deported. That is not about unlawful immigration; it is about people who are legal residents of the United States, husbands and wives of American citizens, who can be denied admission to the United States even though they are legal because the country they were born in has done something wrong. This is the new Chinese exclusion act which we repealed.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. The amendment calls on the Mexican Government to work closely with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to take immediate action to prevent the occurrence of rape along the U.S.-Mexican border. Rape is a horrendous crime. Every 2\1/2\ minutes somewhere in the United States someone is sexually assaulted, and only 36 percent of the rapes are reported to law enforcement in the United States. It is safe to assume that the rate of reporting is considerably less along the border. The women who are crossing our border are extremely vulnerable, and they are unlikely to tell law enforcement officials that they were raped while trying to cross the border without their papers. The smugglers know that these women are vulnerable, and they take advantage of them. I think in many ways this amendment makes clear what many have been talking about today, and that is the need to gain control of the situation at the border. I have talked today a lot about how dysfunctional the administration of our laws has been. We do not have enough Border Patrol agents; they are not properly equipped; we do not have enough prosecutors; we do not have enough judicial personnel; we are citing and releasing individuals and letting them go. We have a chaotic situation at the border, and we need to create an orderly situation at our borders. We need to take control of it. It is not occurring right now. Part of that, and again this has been discussed, is to regularize the ability of individuals who want to come and be part of the American Dream so that they do not have to be with smugglers, vulnerable victims of crime, victims of rape; that there is some orderly manner for individuals to move back and forth across the border, to do the jobs that we know are not going to get done without them. Earlier today, not on the record, someone said, Well, you know, if this bill passes, that is the end of salads in America. I think we need to contemplate the role that immigrant labor plays in the area of agriculture, fast food, tourism, the hotel industry, the tourist industry and the like. I think it is a mistake that the underlying bill does not deal with that issue. I do agree, however, that the gentlewoman's amendment really calling on our two governments to coordinate, to fight this horrendous crime of rape is well intentioned, it is something I can support; and I hope it does some good. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition although I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. Before recognizing my colleague, I just wanted to mention that on Mr. Castle's amendment there are several other issues that I think we need to consider, assuming they are going to pay any attention to this at all, which I have questions about. We do have expedited removal provisions, and the data-keeping is not very good there. I would note also that part of our problem is that not only do we have inadequate enforcement at the border; we are just not enforcing the laws at the border, but we do not have the personnel to actually adjudicate matters once we have apprehended people. Now, the expedited removal at the border, it is controversial among some, but I think not at points of entry. Judgments can be made. There are problems that the General Accounting Office has told us relative to asylum, the application asylum laws, that do need to be addressed. But it is not at all clear that these numbers are going to be folded into this, and I think we ought to be aware of that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the chairman of the committee a question: I understand from the Democrats on the Rules Committee that we have not yet received the manager's amendment that has been discussed so frequently on the floor today to the underlying bill. We have not seen anything. Do you have any idea when Members will see this manager's amendment that has been discussed today?

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should get this information, and, actually, I believe that, under current law, the department is required to give us this information. In fact, there is an Office of Immigration Statistics buried in the bureaucracy of this department that is supposed to provide information to us on a variety of subjects. I would just note that this is an agency that not only cannot administer, it is an agency that cannot count. We have had, for example, and it is a different issue, certainly, than terrorism, but I think several years in the last half decade where they have failed to count the number of visas when there were limits on employment visas, and then they say a big oops; they have given too many. And sometimes they even try to sneak around and deduct the overassessment from the next year's. They cannot count because they do not have any technology. I think it would be quite a dandy idea to find out not only who has been apprehended from countries other than those who are immediately adjacent to us but a whole variety of other information, statistical information, about these individuals. Again, I appreciate that the author is in good faith trying to make this happen. I will make him a side bet, maybe lunch, that we will never get this information any more than we get the information on the H-1B program that usually is due every year and usually we get it somewhere between 1, 2 and even 3 years late and wrong. I would like to get the information, but none of this is really going to happen until the inept administration of this function is improved. And I, regrettably, do not see that with the new Brownie coming on. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.