Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

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, I would just like to rise in support of this very intelligent amendment. You know, most people do not realize that we actually have fewer beds, detention space in America today than we did on September 11. We have 700 fewer beds today than we did on September 11, 2001. I have a bill that has not been scheduled for action that relates to unaccompanied minor children, and I would like to just mention the plight of one young boy, Malik Jarno, who came to the United States in his Boy Scout uniform to go to a Boy Scout jamboree. He is slightly retarded and he ended up, a long story I will not bore you with, being arrested. He did not commit any crime and was put in a jail, a 16-year- old boy in his Boy Scout uniform, put in a jail with adults. It is absolutely wrong to treat children in that manner. The gentlewoman's amendment would make sure that children are treated appropriately while their matters are being reviewed. It does not say what the outcome has got to be, but just that we do not put children in prison with adults. Civilized nations do not do that. And I commend the gentlewoman for her amendment. It would also increase the ability to hold those who are not currently able to be held since, for reasons we cannot understand, the Bush administration has 700 fewer beds today than we did on September 11, 2001.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, we have numerous reports that are required. I sit on the committee, which is why I know this. They never do the reports. They are required by law to submit the reports. We have dozens, hundreds of reports that simply have never been delivered. I hope this is an exception, but I do not have a high level of confidence.

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

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I said earlier, I plan to support the amendment. I think it is worth making clear: There is no exit system now. So why does that matter? People come into the United States, they put their fingerprints on the US-VISIT system. It catches some people, and it does not catch others. And then they come into the United States. We have been talking earlier about making aggravated felons of those who overstay their visas, whether they be visitor or whatever. At the current time, and I do not see this changing any time soon, we do not catch those people. If they leave, we do not know if they have left or if they are here. Because we do not have a connection with our database, we do not know if they are connected with terrorism or not. So the lack of functionality that we have in technology and the lack of deployment of additional technology has left us more vulnerable than we need to be. I mentioned earlier this evening that some of the 9/11 terrorists were not admissible to the United States. The officer who inspected them could not know that because the fact of their ineligibility was on a piece of microfiche sitting in a bucket. You cannot search a database if it is on a piece of microfiche sitting in a bucket. We are not that much better off today than we were at that time. I am sure the gentleman is distraught about that. I am as well. I have been trying to get this changed for more than half a decade. The timeline for a billion-dollar program is a good idea, but I do not have any real confidence that the department will perform any better after this amendment is adopted than it has in the past several years with a lot of pushing and insisting from Members, frankly, on both sides of the aisle. The incompetence just does not quit. 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. I would simply note that this amendment will not really cure the problems in this bill. It will not get the resources. It will not make the administration do its job. It will not cure the incompetence and lack of performance that we have seen at the borders, both borders, southern and northern, as well as our ports of entry. It a good idea to enforce the laws. Unfortunately, the administration is not doing so. Nothing in this bill is going to help them do so. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will note that the amendment does not really accomplish anything; although, I certainly really would not want to oppose enforcing the law. The gentleman mentioned some things that are deficient in the administration of our immigration laws, and they are not new things. Let me just give you an example on reporting a change of address. Do you know how that is done? You fill out a piece of paper, and you submit it. Do you think it is possible to actually find those pieces of paper, the millions of pieces of paper? Anybody who came in and who is a legal permit resident, you could file it, but no one will ever find it. We mention often the terrorists that came into our country and did such damage to us on 9/11. You know what? Those people, most of them were not admissible to the United States, but the poor officer at the border, he did not know that. He could not know it because the piece of information that would have told him that was on a piece of microfiche sitting in a bucket in Florida waiting to be translated into an actual database. There is a lack of technology in the department, and nothing in this bill changes that. Further, nothing in this bill orders the President to order his department to go out and get the people who promised to appear and then disappeared. Let us go find those people. Let us bring them to justice. Either they will be deported or they will have their day and find their remedy. Nothing in this bill tells the department to go out and find the people who have been convicted of crimes, who were supposed to be deported, who instead were released from county jail or from State prison because the department failed to go pick them up. There is nothing in this bill that says, go every day, check with the jails, find out who is a criminal alien and who is about to be released and deport them. There is nothing in there. There are no resources. So this underlying bill is a failure. The amendment is well-meaning I am sure, but it accomplishes almost nothing. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to oppose it.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just note that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of our full committee, worked very hard on this in collaboration with the majority. I would like to thank him for his extraordinary efforts on this, along with that of the author and the chairman. As I say, we support this, although it is a sad day that it is so needed because of the poor administration at the department overall. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this amendment. The Department of Homeland Security IG has exposed improper conduct or wrongdoing of contractors who maintain Federal contracts with the department, and I think this amendment is along the lines of trying to make sure that the American taxpayers are not going to get ripped off like they have been in the past. Take a look at the level of fraud in contracting that has occurred in the Middle East, in Iraq; I mean, hundreds of thousand of dollars of stolen money and the stories that are coming out of the taxpayers being ripped off by contractors in the gulf region after Hurricane Katrina. We know that the record is not a good one in terms of this administration choosing contractors who will not cheat us. So I do think it is important to have this amendment, and I commend the Congressman for bringing this forward. In June, the Homeland Security Committee heard testimony from Joel Gallay who is the acting Inspector General of GSA. Mr. Gallay provided a detailed account of significant deficiencies he discovered in evaluating the efficacy of ISIS, and of particular concern to the IG was the procurement of remote surveillance equipment, the lack of progress in implementing the system and what he called the chronic inattention to the proper administration of the contract. The IG wrote that the program was severely hampered by ineffective management that led to waste, and the report showed deficiencies in the ISIS contract management and in the training of government officials responsible for implementing the program. Now, it is unfortunate that we need this amendment. We would like to think that our administration would not be inept; that they would have accountability; that they would know how to administer; and they would not have this rip-off of taxpayers that has been identified to the committee repeatedly. Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case, and therefore, I do support this amendment to try and stop this rip-off of the taxpayers. As the philosopher George Santayana cautioned, Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. I hope that this amendment will be adopted, and that will help us from continuing to see the rip-off of American taxpayers in the arena of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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, I will support the amendment, but I am under no illusion that the amendment will actually achieve what the author hopes. Over 5 years ago, before there was a Department of Homeland Security, I strongly suggested to the then immigration service that we engage in a biometric study so that we would have a secure biometric system that could be deployed and would be both with our immigration screening systems and also with other databases. We were told by the National Institute of Standards and Technology that they could accomplish that in 6 months for about $2 million. Unfortunately, we never did it. So we now have biometrics that are incompatible in various databases, law enforcement, immigration, and certain other databases that we have. Consequently, even the system that we have on US-VISIT is not fully functional. I would like to note also that the databases that are utilized by US-VISIT are also not integrated. It is true, we have caught some people who have committed crimes who should not be admitted to the United States through US-VISIT, and I count that as a good thing. But the 9/11 Commission was looking at the need to stop terrorists. The problem is that US-VISIT is completely disconnected with our databases relative to terrorists, and I do not think this amendment is going to fix that. I would also like to note that the amendment suggests that we accelerate, I believe, the exit component of US-VISIT. There is no exit component of the US-VISIT. Basically, it does not exist. The situation with databases and technology in the department is simply dismal. We should be filing all immigration matters by biometrics so we do not have the confusion we currently have of names that sound similar, or, in some languages, first and last names get traded back and forth rather interchangeably. It is ridiculous that we have not done that; but it is not for lack of asking, urging and insisting. And I will say something else about getting reports. I sit on the Homeland Security Committee. We are due so many reports by this department, I cannot even begin to count them. We were due a rail security report, I believe, it was last June. We are due reports on cybersecurity; that is several years ago. The department basically thumbs its nose at the United States Congress. It does not provide the reports required under current law. I suppose hope springs internal, and we should ask again, but this resolution will not cure the massive arrogance and incompetence of the department. 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. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, I do not oppose the amendment. Land line and cellular telecommunications can be severely disrupted in a time of natural disaster, and it is important to have satellite communications available so that they are a reliable alternative for first responders and others involved in natural disasters. However, I would note that while I will be happy to vote ``aye'' on the amendment; we do not actually need this amendment to have the use of satellite communications. That is something that the administration could have done on its own. There are some other things that they ought to be doing that would really make a difference. The U.S. Border Patrol needs additional agents, and we need new training for those agents. We need 2,000 additional agents in ICE and 250 additional detention officers. U.S. Marshals need 250 additional personnel and $50 million for vehicles, communications equipment, and miscellaneous equipment. U.S. Attorneys, we need 100 additional personnel on the southwest border and $30 million for additional office space. Why? We have talked about detention beds, but the issue is we need to be able to process these cases, not just hold people. We needs to bring charges against them, those who have an arguable claim, and then adjudicate that claim: either deport them or find that their claim is a valid one. We need additional immigration judges. We need 2,500 additional enforcement personnel in the Coast Guard, and we need 25,000 detention beds. We need 1,000 investigators for fraudulent schemes and documents. We need at least 100 helicopters and 250 power boats for the Border Patrol and at least one police-type motor vehicle for every three agents for the Border Patrol. We need enough portable computers for every Border Patrol motor vehicle. We need hand-held global positioning systems for each Border Patrol agent. We need night vision equipment for all Border Patrol agents working during hours of darkness. We need enough body armor appropriate for the climate and risks faced by individual Border Patrol agents. We need to reestablish the Border Patrol anti-smuggling unit. And we need to establish specialized criminal investigator occupations: one for the investigation of violations of immigration law, another for customs laws, and a third for ag laws. We need to require foreign language training for all our officers in the Department of Homeland Security who come into contact with aliens who cross the border illegally. Yes, this amendment is worth supporting, but we do not really need it to get satellite communications. We do need, however, to authorize the equipment and the personnel so we can enforce the laws at America's borders both north and south. Unfortunately, the underlying bill before us does not do that. It is not a real enforcement measure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, remember at the height of Katrina, that tragedy, and we heard the words, ``Good job, Brownie.'' Well, we have someone equally qualified now in charge of the immigration function in the Homeland Security Department, and I think it is that level of competence that has led us to the problem that we face today, and that is that we have basically dropped the ball, the administration has dropped the ball at the border. They have permitted thousands, tens of thousands, of individuals to promise to appear and then simply to escape into the country. This bill does not direct the administration to go find them and deport them or have their matter be heard. We used to, on a regular basis during the first Bush administration, the father Bush and the Clinton administration, persistently go and grab criminals after their sentences were served out in State and local incarceration facilities and deport them. The law provides for that. The ball has been dropped on that. This bill does not direct the administration to go find those folks who should have been taken in, who should have been deported. Mr. Chairman, I have had some questions about section 404 of the act that I have mentioned previously, and I want to spend a moment on that. Incredibly enough, it provides that legal individuals, permanent residents of the United States, could be precluded, barred from reentry if they leave. Let me give you an example of how it would work. Say your son falls in love with a gal who was born in Cuba. She becomes a legal permanent resident because your son is an American citizen. They go on vacation to London. They try to come back in. Your son gets in, but his wife, a legal permanent resident of the United States, is refused admission. Why? Because Cuba will not accept people who we deport. Now, do you think Fidel Castro cares whether your daughter-in-law is barred or not? I do not think so. This is a ridiculous provision, and it is punitive towards people who were born in China, in Vietnam, in Cuba and in Ethiopia. It has nothing to do with securing our borders, but it does have a lot to do with the de facto reinstatement of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and has a very pernicious, very pernicious result for those who have fled communism in Vietnam and also in Cuba. People are calling in wondering about this bill. They cannot believe that it is true. But let me explain how other provisions would work. The proposal is that individuals who are here without their proper documents, something none of us approve of, would become aggravated felons under this bill. If you are a 10-year-old and you came in here with your parents, you do not have your papers, under this bill, you are an aggregated felon. This will not make up for the Bush administration's failure at the border.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, we are fortunate in Homeland Security to have two of us who serve both on the Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security Committee, and I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our distinguished Democratic leader.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who had a distinguished career in the Border Patrol before being elected to Congress.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), a member of the Homeland Security Committee.