OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act

Date: Oct. 7, 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: Religion Immigration


9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION ACT -- (House of Representatives - October 07, 2004)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 827 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 10.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I intend to offer amendments to strike two provisions of H.R. 10, section 3006 and 3007, which, if enacted, would radically alter U.S. immigration law and put true refugees, bona fide refugees, at risk of injury or harm.

My amendments are supported by approximately 40 religious, refugee and human rights organizations, including the Catholic Bishops Conference, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Human Rights First, Boat People SOS, Refugees International, and many others.

I want to point out to my colleagues that the Bush administration in its statement of administration policy, SAP, which I just received a few minutes ago, makes clear that the administration strongly opposes the overbroad expansion of expedited removal authority which is contained in the underlying bill. These sweeping changes that I would strike, Mr. Chairman, were not recommended by the 9/11 Commission nor have these provisions been sufficiently vetted and analyzed to fully understand their effect.

What we do know is that section 3006 drastically alters and expands existing authority known as "expedited removal" and it could put hundreds of thousands of refugees at risk of immediate deportation.

What we do know is that section 3007, among other things, replaces a clear, longstanding defined "burden of proof" standard for proving an asylum claim with a brand new unfair test that will almost certainly result in deportation regardless of merit.

One might ask, what is wrong with expanding expedited removal? A lot. Expedited removal takes away the rights of legitimate asylum seekers to a fair hearing before the proper authorities.

Tomorrow, we will take this up or perhaps later on tonight. I hope Members will support the amendments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

arrow_upward