Motion to Instruct Conferees on S. 2845, National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON S. 2845, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - October 08, 2004)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 10 with instructions that the House recede to the Senate and strike provisions 3005, 3007, 3009 and 3032 from the bill. These provisions are poison pills that will slow the process of reforming our Nation's intelligence agencies and do nothing to make us safer.
My motion further instructs House conferees to recede to the Senate by striking sections 3051 through 3056 from H.R. 10 relating to driver's licenses, identification cards and accepting the corresponding driver's licenses provisions from the Senate-passed bill.
Mr. Speaker, instead of making us safer, enactment of these provisions would impose severe hardship on aliens by subjecting at least 1 million immigrants to deportation without any administrative hearing or due process, no review; permit the United States to outsource torture by sending an individual to a country where he or she is likely to be tortured; install a number of new barriers to winning asylum claims that are likely to prevent bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of asylum in the United States; and prohibit habeas corpus review.
Mr. Speaker, once again, let me remind my colleagues of the very relevant details. None of these provisions were included in the recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and they are extremely divisive. Insistence on these provisions could greatly complicate the task of conferencing with the Senate and producing a bill implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
Speaking on section 3005, it is very problematic, Mr. Speaker. Among other things, it would bar the use of matricula consular identification cards, a policy that the Bush administration has opposed. Not only would this affect undocumented immigrants, it would also affect Canadians. Section 3005 makes it impossible for Canadians, who currently do not have a passport to be legally in the United States, to establish their identity when encountered by Federal employees.
Last month, this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to overturn the Department of Treasury regulations that permit matricula consular identification cards to be used in banking transactions. The House stripped the provision from the bill by adopting an amendment to H.R. 5025 that was offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the House Committee on Financial Services chairman. The House adopted the Oxley amendment on September 14 by a vote of 222 to 177. Clearly, we should not revisit this. It has been visited not once, but at least on three occasions.
Section 3006. This section greatly expands the use of expedited removal in the United States. It would be especially harmful for women and children who are escaping a range of gender-related persecutions such as rape, sexual slavery, trafficking, honor killings, since persons scarred by such trauma often require time before they can step forward to express their claim.
I would like to think that most people in this Chamber would agree that this would cause untold grief to women and children who will no longer be able to obtain the relief to which Congress believes they are entitled, victimizing them once they are raped, victimizing them once again. This amendment in the Committee of the Whole was carried on the Smith amendment, and then we unfortunately had to revisit it for political purposes where it was defeated or it would not even be in my motion.
Furthermore, this section would reverse several decades of policy with respect to persons fleeing the tyranny in Cuba, eviscerating protections that currently are available to Cubans arriving in the United States. Section 3006 would mean that any Cuban who sets foot on United States soil would have to be placed in expedited removal. Like all others, they would be subject to mandatory detention and swift removal from the United States. This will mean that many Cubans would be returned to the dictatorship of Fidel Castro without so much as a hearing.
Section 3007 is nothing short of an assault on asylum. It would make sweeping changes to asylum law that the drafters erroneously contend would stop terrorists from being granted asylum. Section 3007 would create new barriers to winning asylum claims that are likely to prevent bona fide refugees from receiving the protection of asylum in the United States. This, in turn, would result in bona fide refugees being returned to their persecutors.
It ignores the fact that asylum applicants, particularly survivors of torture, rape or forced abortion or sterilization, may not be comfortable telling this information to a uniformed male inspector officer at an airport.
Section 3009 is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker. If this section is enacted, the constitutionally compelled remedy of habeas corpus will be eliminated, and a plainly inadequate court of appeals review will be substituted that will leave many noncitizens without any forum to raise legitimate claims of governmental error and misconduct. At the same time, the section creates an extremely high burden for obtaining a stay of deportation, inviting government to race to deport noncitizens before a Federal court can rule on the merits of the case.
Section 3032. Supporters of section 3032 falsely contend that it would prevent the United States from deporting persons to countries where they are likely to be tortured. However, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, under this section, as it was amended in the Committee of the Whole by the Hostettler amendment, the United States still could outsource torture by sending individuals to countries where they are likely to be tortured.
It merely provides that in order to do so the United States Government would be required to seek what amounts to a note from the torturing government, that torturing government to promise us that they will not torture that individual anymore before we send them back.
Who among our colleagues will be willing to stake their lives or the lives of their loved ones on the promise of the Government of Sudan or the Government of Syria or the People's Republic of China or North Korea or Cuba or Saudi Arabia that they will not torture someone if we send them back after they try to get asylum here?
Mr. Speaker, our country is far better than this. This provision is unacceptable. The administration expressed the President's opposition to permitting the government to outsource torture to foreign governments in the administration's statement of administration policy on H.R. 10. The President of the United States is against this provision. Members should know that a vote against this motion to instruct would be a vote against the very wishes of the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I, at this point, would like to end my comments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, how much time do the proponents have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman from Illinois has 22 ½ minutes remaining.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me, first of all, read from the 9/11 Commission because I think it is pertinent at this point. In section 3051 through 3056, in paragraph 3, it says, "Far from calling for sweeping anti-immigration legislation, the commission understood that we should reach out to immigrant communities. Good immigration services are one way of doing so that is valuable in every way, including intelligence-gathering. Congress needs to pass meaningful reforms proposed by the 9/11 Commission and not insist," and I hope the gentleman from Indiana read the 9/11 report; it says "not insist on a divisive anti-immigrant agenda that the commission rejected and has nothing to do with preventing another attack."
Not one of those individuals that committed the heinous act on 9/11 had a matricula consular. As a matter of fact, they were issued by the government of the United States of America, and they either entered this country illegally through borders, not south of here but through the Canadian border, and through other means, legally and illegally, into this country. So let us stop trying to confuse one thing with the other.
Anyone listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think that the government of Mexico issues a matricula consular, and all of a sudden you skip and jump and you are in the United States of America, and you get a Social Security card, you get all of the benefits of being here, and you have got a passport, and you are free. If an INS agent, and I would like the gentleman from Indiana to answer that, if an INS agent stops someone with a matricula consular and says, I want identification from you, prove you are legally here in the United States of America, and gives them a matricula consular, answer the question, will that person not or will that person be deported? He knows that person will be immediately deported from the United States of America because we do not recognize that as a legal means of staying in the United States. It is not a passport. It is not a visa. It does not entitle that person to legally be in the United States of America, and the gentleman from Indiana knows that. He is too smart. He knows too much about this issue to be fuzzy or wary on this issue. You cannot stay in this country with a matricula consular.
What does it allow us to do? It allows an immigrant to open up a bank account so they can send money back, hopefully in a good way, back to their loved ones in their countries. That is what it allows them to do. It allows them to take their American citizen children and enroll them in school. It allows them to communicate.
Anybody listening to the gentleman from Indiana would think the Los Angeles Police Department have lost their minds, the New York Police Department have lost their minds, the Chicago Police Department have lost their minds. They like the matricula consular, as do hundreds of police departments across this country, because it ensures the safety and allows them to gather intelligence and information and allows people to cooperate with them. That is safety on our streets and intelligence-gathering. Let me just say, because this matricula consular, anybody thinks you get one, and it is magic. I go to a job, I say: Here, I have got my matricula consular, give me a job. You know, you cannot get a job with a matricula consular.
Lastly, let me say this. He skips over one important part. You have got to be in the United States of America to have a matricula consular, so you must have evaded something. Why do you want a matricula consular if you are already legally in the United States of America? To open up a banking account. That is the purpose. Let me just say that people, hundreds, and the gentleman knows this, hundreds of people die crossing the border between Mexico and the United States. They drown in the Rio Grande, or they die in the desert. The terrorists know, come through Canada. If we put 90 percent of our resources, that is why they are not going to come through. They are going to find other means. We should look for every possible way to stop them, but this is not going to stop them.
As the commission says in their own report, don't use a divisive, anti-immigrant agenda the commission rejected and has nothing to do with preventing. This is the 9/11 Commission report. We should not do that, because it has nothing to do with preventing.
Lastly, you want to deal with the issue of undocumented workers. You and I will both agree and sign on a piece of paper, and we will have the Justice Department notarize it. There are 10 million undocumented workers in the United States of America. This Congress has not shown the political will nor has it put forward the requisite resources to deport them, nor will it ever.
This country needs and thrives on their work, and we all know it. So if we really want to deal with the immigration problem, then let us get an immigration bill, at least start with what the President, George Bush, said on January 7. Let us begin a national debate and an honest discussion of the undocumented workers that live in this country and let us integrate them so that the FBI, the CIA, our police departments have their fingerprints where they work, where they bank. And then, after we have eliminated those 10 million, because we know who they are and where they work and where they bank and where their children go to school and where they live, then we can reduce the number of people down to maybe the real terrorists that hide among them.
Let us do that honestly. But let us not use another anti-immigrant attack within a bill, H.R. 10, which does such a disservice to the families of the lost ones of 9/11.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
First of all, I will insert into the RECORD, since obviously the majority has not read it, a statement of administration policy dated October 7, 2004, from the White House, George Bush's White House. In it, it says on page 2, paragraph 3: "The administration strongly opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal ..... The administration has concerns with the overbroad alien identification standards proposed by the bill that are unrelated to security concerns."
This is the President of the United States of America, the leader of your party that you went to New York and nominated, who is going to debate Senator John Kerry tonight.
So if you are right, Senator John Kerry could say tonight to President Bush, You have standards that are less secure because you believe that people should be expedited and should not be expedited.
You believe they should not be, that the matricula consular somehow allows illegal criminals, murderers, rapists and others to roam around our country; that you oppose their quick and immediate deportation; that you are giving harbor to terrorists in the United States of America.
If we are to believe what the Republican majority has just said, and President Bush has contradicted your position in his letter of official policy, then somebody is wrong and somebody is right here. But I do not think your colleague, the President of the United States, is weak on national defense. I do not think the Republican majority is saying to the President of the United States that he thinks it is a good idea to have murderers and rapists and other criminal elements freely being able to roam the United States of America. Yet, indeed, if you are right, that is what the President supports, because we have his official document of the administration policy, and he says remove this kind of language from the document, that we support it.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say the following. In the same letter from the George Bush administration, it states: "The administration has concerns with overbroad alien identification standards proposed by the bill and unrelated security concerns, and believes that the States, as in the Senate bill, should work these things out." So there are provisions for securing driver's licenses and making sure that they are secure. We have that in the Senate bill.
The gentleman keeps speaking about the 9/11 families. I have an open letter from the 9/11 families, the same families that came to testify before the Congress of the United States, in which they say "recommendations." "We have heard that the House bill to implement 9/11 Commission recommendations also includes provisions to expand the U.S. PATRIOT Act and reform immigration law in ways not recommended by the commission and which we are against." This is the 9/11 families.
Look, anybody listening to this debate would think that if tomorrow somebody who works in Washington State picking apples, and I think the gentleman from Indiana and I would agree that most of the workers in the field of agriculture in Washington State are undocumented here in this country, without legal documentation, picking our apples, let us use that as one example, do you think if you do not give them a driver's license, they are going to stop coming? Do you think if you take away the matricula consular and they cannot get a bank account, they are not coming? Do you think if we pass every other kind of ID requirement, they will stop coming?
They are going to keep coming, as long as in this country there are apple growers who need their work and Americans like you and I that were born here who will not do the work. So let us face it, these are obscuring the real issues we have before us.
I would suggest to the gentleman that he says that maybe the State of Illinois is in play in the electoral college. We just elected a Democratic Governor in the State of Illinois and the former Republican, how ironic, the former Republican Governor of the State of Illinois is currently under indictment by the Federal Government. Do you want to know why? For issuing bogus driver's licenses and taking bribes for them. That is a fact.
Unfortunately, let us have a debate on immigration policy that is really about immigration and security concerns that are really about security.
Mr. Speaker, for the RECORD I include the statement of administration policy.
Statement of Administration Policy
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 10 and appreciates the efforts of the House Leadership and Committees to bring this legislation quickly to the Floor. The Administration looks forward to working with the House and Senate in conference as they resolve their differences on intelligence reform legislation so that it can be enacted as soon as possible The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to address its concerns with the bill, including those described below, and to ensure prompt enactment of necessary legislation to create a strong National Intelligence Director (NID) with full budget authority and other authorities to manage the Intelligence Community, and to provide statutory authority for the newly created National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
The Administration appreciates that H.R. 10 has been revised to clarify the authorities of the NCTC and the definition of national intelligence. The Administration is also pleased that H.R. 10 would prevent disclosure of sensitive information about the intelligence budget. Disclosing to the Nation's enemies, especially during wartime, the amounts requested by the President, and provide by the Congress, for the conduct of the Nation's intelligence activities would be a mistake.
Legislation proposed by the President provides the NID with full budget authority, including clear authority to determine the national intelligence budget, strong transfer and reprogramming authorities, explicit authority to allocate appropriations, and the ability to influence the execution of funds by national intelligence agencies. The Administration is concerned that H.R. 10 does not provide the NID sufficient authorities to manage the Intelligence Community effectively.
The Administration looks forward to working with the House to improve a number of provisions relating to appointments. In particular, the Director of the NCTC should be appointed by the President, and the appointment of certain other officers as proposed in H.R. 10 may raise constitutional issues.
The Administration remains concerned about other provisions that create new bureaucratic structures and layers in the office of the NID and elsewhere that would hinder, not help, the effort to strengthen U.S. intelligence capabilities and preserve constitutional rights.
The Administration commends and supports provisions of H.R. 10 that promote the development of a secure information sharing environment under the direction of the NID while also providing flexibility concerning its design and implementation. We look forward to working with Congress to address some concerns with the degree of specificity of provisions concerning interoperable law enforcement and intelligence data systems.
In addition to provisions concerning the NID, the NCTC, and other core issues responsive to the Administration's proposal, H.R. 10 contains a number of additional provisions, some of which are discussed below.
The Administration strongly supports those provisions of Title II that ensure the Intelligence Community and others in the war on terror have all the necessary tools to prevent terrorist attacks-including provisions to prevent attack by "lone wolf" terrorists and enhanced provisions to deny material support to terrorists, prevent attacks using weapons of mass destruction, and further dry up sources of terrorist financing. These and other additional antiterrorism tools would help keep America safer.
The Administration also supports those provisions of Titles II and III that will better protect our borders from terrorists, while still maintaining our traditions as a welcoming Nation. In particular, the Administration supports efforts to allow visa revocations as a basis for deportation and provisions concerning the judicial review of immigration orders, as in Section 3009. The Administration strongly opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal authorities. The Administration has concerns with the overboard alien identification standards proposed by the bill that are unrelated to security concerns. The Administration welcomes efforts in Congress to address the 9/11 Commission's recommendations concerning uniform standards for preventing counterfeiting of and tampering with drivers licenses and birth certificates, but believes that additional consultation with the States is necessary to address important concerns about flexibility, privacy, and unfunded mandates.
Section 3001 acts to close a security gap by eliminating the Western Hemisphere exception for U.S. citizens. The Administration intends to work with the Congress to ensure that these new requirements are implemented in a way that does not create unintended, adverse consequences.
The Administration strongly opposes section 3032 of the bill. The Administration remains committed to upholding the United States' obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Consistent with that treaty, the United States does not expel, return, or extradite individuals to countries where the United States believes it is more likely than not they will be tortured. The Administration is willing to work with the Congress on ways to address the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), insofar as it may constrain the detention of criminal aliens, while they are awaiting removal, or limit the government's authority to detain dangerous aliens who would be removed from the United States but for the fact that they are afforded protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Title IV contains a number of provisions that purport to establish the policy of the United States on foreign policy issues, require the Executive branch to negotiate certain international agreements, direct how the President will use the voice and vote of the United States in international institutions, direct the content of diplomatic communications with foreign governments, direct the make-up of U.S. delegations to multilateral meetings and negotiations, and require that plans and strategies to achieve specified foreign policy objectives be submitted to the Congress. These provisions are inconsistent with the President's constitutional authority with respect to foreign relations, diplomacy, and international negotiations. Therefore, these provisions should be eliminated or cast in precatory rather than mandatory terms.
In Title V, the Administration commends the provisions that add to the Secretary of Homeland Security's flexibility in providing first responder grant funds to certain high-risk areas, but has concerns about border state funding mandates which reduce that flexibility. The Administration opposes provisions in Title V that would create inequities in personnel policy between the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and looks forward to working with the Congress on a separate and comprehensive reform of law enforcement pay and benefits. The Administration also opposes provisions that would encumber the Federal rulemaking process with duplicative and burdensome new requirements.
The Administration opposes Section 5043 of the bill, which would eliminate the level playing field established for all three branches of government by the Government-Wide Ethics Reform Act of 1989, creating a new regime of non-uniform ethics laws. The financial disclosure process should be modernized to reflect changed circumstances. The Administration urges Congress to adopt the bill to modernize government-wide financial disclosure submitted by the Office of Government Ethics to the Speaker on July 16, 2003.
The Administration is also very concerned about the dozens of new reporting requirements contained in the bill. The Administration will continue to work with the Congress to eliminate or reduce the burden created by unnecessary or duplicative statutory reporting requirements, while respecting the responsibilities of the Congress.
The Administration is also concerned about provisions in Title V that would, taken together, construct a cumbersome new bureaucracy, duplicate existing legal requirements, and risk unnecessary litigation. The Administration urges the House to delete or significantly revise these problematic provisions.
The Administration notes that the Committee bill did not include Section 6 ("Preservation of Authority and Accountability") of the Administration's proposal; the Administration strongly supports inclusion of this provision in the House bill. The Administration's proposal also provides necessary additional authorities for the NID to be able to effectively operate the Office of NID; however, H.R. 10 does not provide the NID with these additional authorities. The legislation should also recognize that its provisions would be executed to the extent consistent with the constitutional authority of the President: to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States; to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair the foreign relations, the national security, deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties; to recommend for congressional consideration such measures as the President may judge necessary or expedient; and to supervise the unitary executive.
Finally, the Administration has concerns with a number of other provisions in the bill and looks forward to working with Congress to address them as the bill proceeds.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.