F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from California repeats the same old refrain that it is the fault of this House that a conference has not been set up. That is not the case. The Senate never messaged their bill to the House when they passed it in May. The only place where a conference can be set up is in the other body, and they can take up the House-passed bill and strike out all after the enacting clause and set up a conference. And only they can explain why that has not been done. Secondly, the gentleman from California says that the catch and release change is meaningless. The Secretary of Homeland Security disagrees. I have a letter supporting the changes, specifically stating that the injunction that was issued against expedited removal of Salvadorans is costing the taxpayers money. This bill changes that. And I will include the letter sent to me by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff on September 20 in the Record at this point. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, September 20, 2006. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your support of critical injunction reform legislation, which will significantly support the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to maintain ``catch and remove'' of non-Mexican illegal aliens apprehended along our Nation's borders. DHS urgently needs Congress to approve this legislation to ensure that long-outdated court decisions do not frustrate efforts to secure the border. DHS has made great strides in increasing the number of non- Mexican illegal aliens detained for removal along the Nation's borders. In fact, DHS now detains all eligible individuals for prompt removal upon apprehension along both the Southwest and Northern borders. However, I am concerned that DHS will not be able to maintain this success because of a 1988 court order that impedes its ability to quickly remove Salvadorans caught after illegally crossing the Nation's borders. The 1988 court decision hinders DHS's ability to place aliens subject to the injunction into expedited removal proceedings--proceedings that allow for quicker immigration processing. Instead, these aliens must be placed into full administrative immigration proceedings. Consequently, they are detained for an average of 48 days prior to removal in contrast to those aliens apprehended on the Southwest border for illegal entry and placed into expedited removal who are detained for an average of only 19 days prior to removal. At an average cost of $95 per day for detention, the inability to fully utilize expedited removal for this population costs the taxpayer approximately $2,755 per alien. In addition, the injunction requires that unrepresented aliens subject to the court decision be detained in the same geographic area in which they are apprehended for seven days prior to transfer in order to afford them the opportunity to obtain counsel. DHS acquires detention space based on current migration trends. If aliens shift migration routes to a jurisdiction outside of the current area where extra bed space is available, this injunction could have serious repercussions on DHS's ability to detain such aliens due to the restriction on transferring them to areas of higher detention capacity. If the shift is sudden and large, the injunction could place enormous strain on available detention space, potentially forcing a return to the recently ended practice of ``catch and release'' until additional resources could be obtained, if available, in appropriate locations. This decision was issued at a time when El Salvador was in the midst of a civil war and when immigration was governed by very different statutes. Yet, the decision continues to dictate the processing of Salvadorans almost 20 years later. On November 17, 2005, DHS fully explained to the district court the dramatic changes in the facts and the law that have occurred since the entry of its perpetual injunction in 1988. DHS asked the district court to lift its order; but, I have no firm date for when this process will reach its conclusion in the district court or upon appeal. There are additional longstanding civil injunctions that impede DHS' s ability to effectively enforce the Nation's immigration laws. These district court decisions have created onerous operating procedures that require the commitment of vast amounts of government resources. They detrimentally impact immigration enforcement on a daily basis, often frustrating DHS's efforts. One such order has resulted in the creation of extra procedures requiring substantial additional resources for routine visa processing. Another such injunction has resulted in certain Freedom of Information Act requests being given priority over other pressing work. For all practical purposes, such invasive court-ordered requirements hamstring the President and the Congress's authority over the borders even when the conditions that gave rise to such requirements may have changed. Under current law and court procedures, it can be extremely time-consuming and difficult to end these injunctions. With this legislation, Congress will be taking significant steps to ensure that DHS is no longer held hostage by these antiquated court orders. Thank you again for your support of DHS's immigration enforcement efforts. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this and other measures to ensure that this issue is fully resolved. Sincerely, Michael Chertoff. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit. It is the same point of order that I made on the previous motion to recommit. The motion to recommit violates clause 7 of rule XVI and on page 3, lines 1 and 2, it has the same defect of increasing the number of U.S. marshals who do not have jurisdiction over immigration violations.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit for the same reason that I made a point of order against the gentleman from Illinois' previous motion to recommit. Clause 7 of rule XVI precludes amendments on a subject different from that under consideration. H.R. 6095 reaffirms the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to voluntarily investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the United States in order to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws, and clarifies guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses. It also ends the practice of catch and release by DHS to ensure that immigration laws are enforced in the manner in which they were intended. This motion to recommit pertains to a subject matter different from the legislation under consideration. It is the same motion to recommit that the gentleman from Illinois made to the previous bill by increasing the number of U.S. marshals by 250, which is on page 2, line 15 of the motion to recommit. The U.S. marshals do not have a role in enforcing the immigration law. Thus, the motion to recommit expands the scope of the bill and is nongermane, and it fails the test of germaneness contained in clause 7 of rule XVI.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on his motion to recommit as well.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is not germane, because clause 7 of rule XVI precludes an amendment on a subject matter different from that under consideration. Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on my point of order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, has the minority provided our side of the aisle with a copy of this motion?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, we do not have it. I object. I ask that the motion be read.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6094 restores the Secretary of Homeland Security's authority to detain certain dangerous aliens, to ensure the removal of the deportable criminal aliens and to combat alien gang crime. The legislation provides DHS authority to detain beyond 6 months aliens under orders of removal who cannot be removed in a number of situations, such as if an alien has a highly contagious disease, release would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences, release would threaten national security, or release would threaten the safety of the community and the alien is either an aggravated felon or is mentally ill and has committed a crime of violence. The legislation also provides DHS with expedited procedures for the removal of inadmissible criminal aliens and provides new tools to prosecute criminal alien gang members. The motion to recommit pertains to a subject matter different from that contained in the legislation under consideration. Specifically on page 2, line 18 of the motion to recommit, it increases the number of United States marshals. United States marshals do not do immigration enforcement, and thus it expands the bill beyond the scope of the bill and is nongermane. And as a result, the motion fails the test of germaneness contained in clause 7 of rule XVI and thus is not in order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6094 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6094, the Community Protection Act, which consists of 3 crucial provisions to ensure the safety of all Americans: Title I includes the Dangerous Alien Detention Act which contains provisions similar to those passed by the House last December as a part of H.R. 4437. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and Clark v. Martinez (2005), the Supreme Court decided that under current law, immigrants under orders of removal can almost never be detained for more than 6 months if for some reason they cannot be removed from the country within that time. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security has had no choice but to release hundreds of criminal aliens back into our communities. The Department of Justice has testified that the government is now required to release numerous rapists, child molesters, murderers, and other dangerous illegal aliens into our streets. ``Vicious criminal aliens are now being set free within the United States.'' One of the aliens released was subsequently arrested for shooting a New York state trooper in the head. This bill will end this perilous practice by allowing the Department of Homeland Security to detain certain dangerous aliens beyond 6 months when they cannot successfully be removed. This would include immigrants whose release would have serious adverse foreign policy considerations or threaten the national security or community safety. Such aliens may be detained for periods of 6 months at a time and the period of detention can be renewed. The title also provides for appropriate judicial review of detention decisions. Title II, the Criminal Alien Removal Act, was also passed as a part of H.R. 4437. It would allow the Department of Homeland Security to use the same expedited procedures available for the removal of aggravated felons to remove other inadmissible criminal aliens who are not permanent residents and otherwise are ineligible for release. At the present time, these aliens must be placed in lengthy removal proceedings before an immigration judge, despite the fact that they are not eligible for any relief. This title permits removal of criminal aliens as expeditiously as possible. Title III of the bill contains the ``Alien Gang Removal Act'' authored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), which was also included in H.R. 4437. Crime by alien members of criminal street gangs is a growing menace. Moreover, while criminal alien gangs are spreading throughout the country, they often terrorize immigrant communities and subvert the qualities of honesty and hard work that typify most of these communities. Despite the clear threat that the violent street gangs pose to our neighborhoods and communities, immigrants who are members of these gangs are not deportable or inadmissible, and can receive asylum and temporary protected status. DHS must wait until they are caught and convicted of a specific criminal act before it can act to remove them. One of the most violent and fastest-growing gangs, MS-13, was formed by Salvadorans who entered the U.S. during the civil war in El Salvador in the 1980s, and has an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 members in 31 States. This bill renders alien gang members deportable and inadmissible, mandates their detention, and bars them from receiving asylum or temporary protected status. The bill adopts procedures similar to those used by the State Department to designate foreign terrorist organizations in order to enable the Attorney General to designate gangs as criminal street gangs. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to make America's streets safer for all. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California has recited a litany of rollcalls, and all of those rollcalls, from what I heard, deal with appropriations legislation. We have a budget. We cannot fully fund every request that comes down in the budget; otherwise, the deficit would balloon to even higher levels. But the fact is that the most generous parts of the budget have been for defense and homeland security since 9/11, and there have been some pretty large increases in that. Then the gentlewoman from California says that this bill is unnecessary because we already can refuse to admit gang members into this country. And she is not correct on that. In order to refuse to admit a gang member into this country under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, that gang member had to have been convicted of a crime. And the difference between her side of the argument and our side of the argument is pretty simple: They require there to be a victim first. Somebody has to be a victim of a crime that has been committed by a gang member who serves time in an American prison and then is deported and attempts to come back. We don't think that a gang member should have to be convicted first to keep him out of our country. That is a big difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Now, we have heard an awful lot of rhetoric on this floor about the fact that we have to have a comprehensive immigration bill. We passed a comprehensive immigration bill in 1986, and the failure of that bill has caused the problems that this country faces today with 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and the number growing by over half a million ever year. The 1986 bill was triggered by a commission that was appointed by President Carter which was headed by the then-President of Notre Dame University, Father Theodore Hesburgh. Let me quote a little bit from the commission report, and, remember, this was the Hesburgh Commission. Five years before the 1986 bill was passed, the Hesburgh Commission said: ``We do not believe that the United States should begin the process of legalization until new enforcement measures have been instituted to make it clear that the United States is determined to curtail new flows of undocumented/illegal aliens. Without more effective enforcement than the U.S. has had in the past, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry. The select commission is opposed to any program that would precipitate such movement.'' That was true 25 years ago when Father Hesburgh and his commission penned those words. It is true today, particularly in the light of the failure of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. The legislation we have before us now attempts to fulfill the admonition that Father Hesburgh and his commission gave to the country in 1981. That is why it should pass.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1018, I call up the bill (H.R. 6094) to restore the Secretary of Homeland Security's authority to detain dangerous aliens, to ensure the removal of deportable criminal aliens, and combat alien gang crime, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, what we have heard from the other side of the aisle I think basically falls into the category of the perfect being the enemy of the good. When the perfect defeats the good, then bad prevails. The way checks and balances were set up, it is really hard to pass a perfect bill. I think one has been passed since 1789 in this House of Representatives. What we are doing at the end of the session is some good stuff. Criminal alien gangs and all of the other things that I described in my opening statements, I think they are good. If they are good, we ought to vote for them. If it isn't good to deal with criminal alien gangs that are poisoning and terrorizing our streets, then vote ``no.'' Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006, to prohibit the construction and use of border tunnels for the purposes of smuggling. For over a decade, drug cartels and ``coyotes'' have used border tunnels to smuggle elicit drugs and illegal immigrants into the United States. Border tunnels range from rudimentary gopher holes to more sophisticated tunnels equipped with electricity, ventilation and even rails for electric carts. These tunnels have been used to penetrate both our northern and southern borders. Fifty tunnels have been discovered along the southwest border since 1990, and 36 of them have been unearthed in just the last 5 years. This January, a joint investigation between the U.S. and Mexican law enforcement led to the discovery of a narcotics smuggling tunnel just east of the Otay Mesa, California, port of entry. Authorities seized nearly two tons of marijuana. The tunnel, approximately 86 feet deep and nearly three-quarters of a mile long, began inside a small warehouse in Otay Mesa, Mexico, and ended inside a vacant warehouse in San Diego, California. In 2005, Federal agents discovered a 360-foot tunnel between British Columbia, Canada, and Washington State. This tunnel was also used for illegal drug trafficking, though DEA agents noticed that it could easily have been used to smuggle persons or to facilitate terrorism. We were reminded again of the growing problem just a few days ago when another drug smuggling border tunnel was discovered between California and Mexico. Despite the clearly illegal purposes of these border tunnels, efforts to fully and effectively prosecute the smugglers are hampered by the fact that it is not a crime to construct, finance, or use a border tunnel. If there is insufficient evidence to prosecute these individuals for drug smuggling or alien trafficking, there are virtually no consequences for the criminal organizations that build and use these tunnels. The Border Tunnel Prevention Act plugs this glaring loophole. The bill criminalizes the construction or financing of a tunnel or subterranean passage across our international border. An individual prosecuted under this offense faces a penalty of up 20 years in prison. Additionally, any person convicted of using a tunnel or subterranean passage to smuggle aliens, weapons, drugs, terrorists, or illegal goods will be punished by doubling the sentence for the underlying offense. The bill also provides for the forfeiture of assets or property traceable to the construction or use of a border tunnel and instructs the sentencing commission to adopt guidelines that properly reflect the severity of this offense. Madam Speaker, the bill is supported by Members from both sides of the aisle. This legislation provides a critical tool for protecting our national security and combating the drug and alien smuggling that plagues our borders. I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4830, currently under consideration.