mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , let me first of all say and repeat what i have said many times , that immigration does not equate to terrorism . 
also i have said just recently , this morning , that the immigration reform question is a bipartisan question . 
i also took note of the fact that if one were to take polling numbers , there obviously is an overwhelming impression that what we are addressing today is an immigration bill . 
certainly the sessions amendment deals more with immigration than it does with straight issues of terrorism , because there is no divide amongst the american people regarding securing the homeland . 
my concern with this legislation is procedural , but it is also a question of fairness . 
this is a serious departure from the normal trends that we have now expressed by the body of this congress and that is the establishment of the department of homeland security . 
this in fact takes homeland security responsibilities and actually outsources them . 
the reason this is so challenging is that the committee on homeland security , the gentleman from california ( chairman cox ) and the gentleman from mississippi ( mr. thompson ) xz4004021 , the ranking member , have not had a chance to review this amendment . 
this amendment has had no hearings , and here we are talking about giving extraordinary powers to bondsmen . 
this means if you are an immigrant undocumented in removal proceedings working with a lawyer , working with family members , you are then dispatching bondspersons with no direct immigration training to round you up and immediately bring you to a point of deportation where you are in the middle of a legal process . 
if that is considered to be , one , a recommendation of the 9/11 commission , i would severely and strongly disagree . 
yes , individuals who are in line to be deported is an issue . 
we need more detention beds and more security at our borders , but we do not need to outsource to bondspersons , however financially opportunistic it may be , and as a former judge and someone who deals with these issues in my private practice before coming to congress , i realize bondspersons have their role , but not to contract out to deal with this issue . 
i know the gentleman from texas ( mr. sessions ) xz4003670 has good intentions , but may i give a historical perspective , and that is of the 1850 fugitive slave act . 
the truly frightening part of this legislation is it smacks of that kind of effort . 
the fugitive slave act gave broad , virtually unfettered power to agents or slave owners to seize slaves in the free states and return or send them to slavery in the slave states , obviously with little regard for their legal status in free states with no due process and opportunity to defend themselves . 
that was 1850 . 
if we randomly give the opportunity to bondsmen who have no understanding of immigration laws , we can be assured that in a discriminatory fashion they will be rounding up people who look different and speak different languages , and we will be impacted in a very negative way . 
i close by saying all of us in our congressional districts hear the hardship cases of immigrants who are seeking legal status who have been in line for long times who have had terrible things happen to them because of the complexity of the immigration system . 
that speaks for comprehensive immigration reform , but those are the very victims , those sad cases , that are going to be impacted by this amendment . 
i rise in opposition to the amendment that my colleague congressman sessions has offered . 
this amendment would empower bail bondsman to enforce immigration laws by summarily rounding up and deporting people . 
it would outsource an important government immigration enforcement responsibility to the bail bonds industry , eliminating the few procedural due process rights immigrants have when challenging deportation . 
this would be a dramatic change in how we arrest and detain people in removal proceedings . 
many people rounded up in this manner would turn out not to be deportable after all . 
they may be u.s. citizens ; they may not be removable under the grounds charged ; or they may be eligible for some form of relief . 
yet this policy would treat them all as criminals . 
i am particularly disturbed by the fact that these dramatic policy changes have never been reviewed or examined by a congressional committee . 
there were no hearings . 
no debate occurred . 
no scrutiny at all . 
in fact , the language of this amendment was only recently made available . 
without committee scrutiny , we would be giving bonding agents vast , unfettered authority to pursue , apprehend , detain and surrender immigrants -- even when the bond is not breached . 
this is a certain recipe for misconduct , mistakes and the trampling of civil , due process and human rights . 
without committee scrutiny , we would be allowing bonding agents to decide when people are flight risks and to round them up and hand them over to dhs for deportation . 
without committee scrutiny we would be permitting bonds to be forfeited and people deported for not notifying dhs of changes of address prior to a move -- even though dhs regulations give immigrants 10 days after a move to notify the agency of the change . 
without committee scrutiny , we would be allowing bonding agents to have open access to all information held by the u.s. government or any state or local government that may be helpful in locating or surrendering the person who is the subject of the bond . 
without committee scrutiny , we would be compelling the disclosure of sensitive or confidential information to a bonding agent , such as : medical history ; criminal investigation notes , location of witnesses , and information on victims of domestic violence . 
i urge you to vote against this amendment . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
