H. Rept. 105-644 - FOR THE RELIEF OF LARRY ERROL PIETERSE105th Congress (1997-1998)
Committee Report
H. Rept. 105-644 - 105th Congress (1997-1998)
Report text available as:
- TXT
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
House Report 105-644 - FOR THE RELIEF OF LARRY ERROL PIETERSE
[House Report 105-644]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 105-644
_______________________________________________________________________
FOR THE RELIEF OF LARRY ERROL PIETERSE
_______________________________________________________________________
July 24, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and
ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 379]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 379) for the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary........................................ 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.................... 2
Hearings................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.................................... 3
Committee Oversight Findings............................... 3
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings...... 3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures.................. 3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.................. 3
Constitutional Authority Statement......................... 4
Agency Views............................................... 4
Purpose and Summary
This private bill would waive the provisions of the I.N.A.
that could cause Mr. Pieterse's deportation based on the
offense pardoned by the Governor.
Background and Need For the Legislation
After a seven-year relationship, Larry Pieterse and his
first wife Eva were married in 1981. Mr. Pieterse entered the
United States in November 1981 as a P2-1 (2d preference: spouse
of alien resident), and has resided here ever since.
In 1983, the marriage began to fall apart. Mrs. Pieterse
asked Mr. Pieterse to move out. Once he moved out, his wife
began to stalk him--at one point slashing the tires of a woman
he was seeing. Mr. Pieterse informed his first wife that he
wanted a divorce. She asked to come over to talk, at which time
she planted cocaine in his home and a call was made to the
police. He was arrested and charged with drug possession.
During the trial the first wife's diary was presented to the
court in which she admitted to buying and planting the drugs in
retaliation for Mr. Pieterse's desire to divorce her.
After being assured by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service that deportation would not result from a misdemeanor
conviction, because of financial concerns associated with
further court proceedings, Mr. Pieterse accepted the plea
negotiation arranged by his attorney with the State Attorney.
In accordance with that plea negotiation, Mr. Pieterse entered
a plea to the misdemeanor charge of possession of drug
paraphernalia and adjudication of guilt and imposition of
sentence was withheld. However, after Mr. Pieterse's plea was
entered a provision was enacted which allows for deportation
based on a conviction for a past or present drug offense
(formerly Section 241(a)(11), now Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act). The new provision made
Mr. Pieterse deportable.
In 1991, after thorough investigation of the case by Parole
Board investigators, the State of Florida granted Mr. Pieterse
a full pardon. However, because Section 241(a)(11) is a Federal
statute, a state pardon does not prevent a drug conviction from
being utilized for deportation purposes.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the I.N.S. agent working
this case and I.N.S. Headquarters personnel, the Committee
informed the sponsor of the bill that Interim Decision 3250
decided that a state drug conviction is not a deportable
offense if it is established that had the alien been prosecuted
under federal law, the alien would have been eligible for
federal first offender treatment under the provisions of 18
U.S.C. 3607(a). Because Mr. Pieterse's case fell into those
newly established guidelines, before the Subcommittee could
consider a private bill for Mr. Pieterse, that administrative
remedy needed to be exhausted.
Mr. Pieterse filed a motion to reopen his deportation
proceeding based on this new interim decision. However, due to
a new regulation restricting the time period for filing a
motion to reopen, it has been denied as untimely. Commissioner
Meissner has refused to assist with waiving the untimeliness
issue. The I.N.S. has indicated that a private bill is Mr.
Pieterse's only remedy and indicated they would not object to
enactment of a private bill.
The Subcommittee has consulted with the parole investigator
for the Governor of Florida and the I.N.S. agent in charge of
this case, as well as received the confidential case analysis
of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission's Office of
Executive Clemency. Investigations by all three sources were
exhaustive. All found that the ex-wife clearly planted the
drugs, and that Mr. Pieterse was guilty of no crime whatsoever.
Mr. Pieterse remarried in 1990. Since that time, he has
been the sole provider for his wife, Theresa and has assisted
in the financial care of her four children from a previous
marriage. Theresa, an American citizen, does not work and is
chronically ill. The Pieterses have incurred over $50,000 in
legal fees attempting to rectify this situation. Mr. Pieterse's
has unfairly suffered as a result of a series of incidents and
resulting circumstances beyond his control, and a private bill
is the only way to remedy this problem.
Hearings
The Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims held
no hearings on H.R. 379.
Committee Consideration
On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims met in open session and ordered favorably reported the
bill H.R.379 without amendment by voice vote, a quorum being
present.
On July 16, 1998, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 379
without amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings
No findings or recommendations of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 379, the following
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 20, 1998.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 379, a bill for
the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Enclosure.
cc: Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Minority Member
H.R. 379--A bill for the relief of Larry Errol Pieterse
H.R. 379 would grant permanent residence and relief from
deportation to Larry Errol Pieterse. CBO estimates that
enacting this legislation would have no significant impact on
the federal budget. H.R. 379 would not affect direct spending
or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz,
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by
Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(1)(4) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article 1, Section 1, Clause 8 of the
Constitution.
Agency Views
The comments of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
on H.R. 379 are as follows:
U.S. Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Washington, DC., July 22, 1997.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This refers to H.R. 379 for the relief
of Larry Errol Pieterse, who was also the beneficiary of H.R.
765 in the 104th Congress.
The bill would provide the beneficiary relief from
deportation as a result of his conviction on April 25, 1984 in
Duval County, Florida for possession of drug paraphernalia. The
bill also provides for restoration of status of the beneficiary
to a lawful permanent resident of the United States, and for a
waiver of excludability, should the beneficiary depart the
United States and seek to reenter as a returning resident and
that his conviction may not be used as a determination that the
beneficiary has exhibited bad moral character.
A recent investigation has been conducted and it has been
determined that there are no substantive changes in the
beneficiary's situation since the last report. Mr. Pieterse is
employed as a piping designer in Atlanta, Georgia. His salary
is $80,000 per year. His wife is unemployed. The beneficiary
and his spouse and two of her children reside in their
residence in Lithonia, Georgia and they are renting their
former residence in Lawrenceville, Georgia.
Absent enactment of the bill, the beneficiary is subject to
enforcement of the outstanding order of deportation which has
been entered in his case by the Executive Office for
Immigration Review.
Sincerely,
Allen Erenbaum,
Acting Director,
Congressional Relations.