INS reform bill advances amid partisan bickering

A House panel passed legislation Thursday that would reorganize the much-maligned Immigration and Naturalization Service under a specially-created associate attorney general.

But the bill, H.R. 2528, which cleared the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on a voice vote and now moves to the full Judiciary Committee, has sparked partisan bickering and opposition from the Clinton administration.

The legislation enjoyed bipartisan support when it was introduced earlier this summer, with a number of mainly California and Texas Democrats joining Republicans in sponsoring the bill. But since then, Republicans and Democrats began working on different variations of the bill and the parties now have split over the issue of INS reform.

The subcommittee voted Thursday to approve an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, after defeating another substitute amendment introduced by ranking Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, on a 6-4 roll call vote.

Smith's amendment would do away with the current INS structure, currently an agency within the Justice Department, and place immigration affairs under an associate attorney general who would "supervise" and "oversee" two new major offices. One office would oversee services such as naturalization, visa petitions and refugee applications, and the other would enforce immigration law and oversee border patrols, deportation and investigations.

"Each new bureau would be responsible for making policies that affect only their bureau," Smith said. When that policy affects another bureau, the associate attorney general would act as a coordinator.

Currently, all policies and functions are under the supervision of an INS commissioner. Under the bill, the new associate attorney general would replace the INS commissioner.

The amendment allows for an 18-month transition period, during which the new head of immigration can perform certain functions for both bureaus, such as policy and strategy, general counsel, and congressional and public affairs.

Smith's provision also calls for the creation of an office of shared services-directly under the associate attorney general-which would oversee certain shared functions such as training and personnel. But the new immigration head could recommend to fold that office back into the two main bureaus after a three-year period.

Smith's proposal would also create separate accounts between the bureaus, creating a "firewall" so that fees for services cannot be used for enforcement.

But the measure came under fire from the panel's Democratic minority. "This substitute is only an evil kissing cousin of the original bill," said Jackson Lee, pointing out that it did not enjoy the support of the White House, immigration advocacy groups, or any Democrat on the panel.

The new position of associate attorney general would unlikely be able to direct immigration policy since the legislation only gives the post only modest supervisory and coordinating powers.

Jackson Lee also criticized the measure's continued placement of the inspection program with the enforcement branch. "Inspectors spend most of their time deciding whether people are admissible to the United States," Jackson-Lee said. "That is an adjudication function, not an enforcement function."

Democrats also criticized the provision for placing immigration judges under the authority of the person running the immigration service, whereas recent legislation had given them more autonomy.

Jackson Lee also criticized the bill's funding language as "meaningless" because it is discretionary and not mandatory.

A Justice Department letter highlighted the administrations' concerns. "It is essential," the letter states, "that any restructuring legislation ensure that a single, high-level department official manages and directs our immigration system full-time."

Democrats on the panel voiced concerns that under Smith's provision the two bureaus would compete for funding, and that the enforcement bureau would receive a disproportionate amount of money.

Jackson Lee's defeated amendment, offered as an amendment to Smith's substitute, created three bureaus under an "administrator" with more centralized powers. The bureaus would be responsible for adjudication, enforcement and pre-hearing services respectively. The latter would oversee detention, access to representation and alternatives to detention.

Jackson Lee's amendment also would make funding changes. Under the measure, appropriated funds would have to be used before service fees, and firewalls would be created between each bureau.

With the current uncertainty over the congressional recess date, committee aides could not say whether the bill will be considered by the full committee before adjournment.