To extend the time required for construction of a hydroelectric project, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) that it is interesting that we come to the floor and try to make like there is a divide in the arresting and detaining of criminals. Every jurisdiction, outside of the Federal jurisdiction, has the right and responsibility to arrest criminals, whether they be documented or undocumented. There is no divide on that question. Local law enforcement, local sheriffs, local constables, local police, can, in fact, arrest criminals, detain them and even send them through our judicial system.

Your amendment, however, breaks the back of our local jurisdiction, and it creates an enormous unfunded mandate. It would force cash- strapped State and local governments to enforce civil immigration laws. We want the criminals off the street. But you would force our local governments to take on extra responsibilities without funding.

Let me remind you that the idea of enforcement of terrorism really begins outside of our borders. That is what we are here to talk about, to ensure that we have strong border security enforcement.

I would also offer to say that we hope that the DeFazio-Lungren bill passes in a few moments because that is what it does, it ensures that we protect against those who would come inside. That would protect the Federal jurisdiction and the State. But this amendment preempts any State and local laws that bar their law enforcement officers from assuming the Federal responsibility of enforcing civil immigration laws.

But more importantly, what it does is it forces local jurisdictions to send private information on crime victims, possibly a rape victim, who may be an undocumented immigrant. And this amendment opposes another unfunded mandate on State and local governments. It undermines effective community policing, increases racial profiling. As well, let me suggest that it requires local government to give information that it might not even have. Then you eliminate their opportunities to secure their own communities.

And so, frankly, this is a bill that most of the law enforcement are against, and it is enormously burdensome, and it breaks up the responsibility, or it stops the responsibility of

law enforcement because it is divisive and it is unworkable.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You know, I wish that we could find common ground on really securing America and not, if you will, unduly burdening our local and State jurisdictions that already comply with the law, that already arrest the criminals. Now you are asking them to engage in civil immigration issues, which should be under Federal jurisdiction.

And my good friend suggests that this is an allowance amendment; it simply allows them to do this. He knows that by the very announcement or pronouncement coming from the Federal Government, what he does is he intimidates local jurisdictions and they take on burdens that they truly cannot fund.

We should be focusing on securing the borders, providing an enhanced, pre-testing program for those who are coming into the United States, providing more resources for Border Patrol agents, allowing them to enforce the border, giving them the law enforcement authority, being more secure in the visa program that we have. Those are some of the underlying elements that are missing out of this legislation, and I am sad to say that the present amendment will not in any way, I believe, provide any more security than what we have.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill will not work because local officials are not trained. They do not understand the difference between those who are undocumented or citizens. We are putting an unfunded mandate on it. We are keeping crime victims from reporting the crimes to local law enforcement. We are breaking community policing; and we are putting this heavy burden, and we are not securing America.

Provide resources to the Border Patrol and you will secure America. Provide technology and you will secure America. Vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment is very concise and very direct. The amendment deals with eligible aliens who are released to the custody of suitable individual or organizational sponsors who will supervise them, prevent them from absconding, and ensure required appearances.

Decisions on eligibility for participation are made on case-by-case determination by DHS with no judicial review. The various options for secure alternatives include placement with sponsor, group home or supervised environment with adequate security.

There is a need for secure alternative programs because my good friends over here are criminalizing the elderly, the sick, children, and others who are now undocumented in the country.

The annual population of aliens in DHS custody is more than 200,000. We will add another 11 million. The gap between the number of noncitizens in immigration proceedings on a given day and the number of detention beds available to the DHS continues to grow.

This is a simple, straightforward amendment that would allow alternative sites to be established with criteria given by the Secretary of Homeland Security so that you can, in essence, provide secure alternatives for the elderly, the sick, the infirm, and children. When you make criminals out of 11 million undocumented who are here in the United States, by their very presence are made criminals, then I would assure you that this particular secure alternative program is needed. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I, too, have respect for the gentleman from Texas, but I think he should read the bill and see that the bill already has a secure alternative program in place. This amendment does not require the Secretary of Homeland Security to be advised or the program to be structured by a number of groups that he might consult with. It only allows the Secretary to seek advice. Also, this provides only the ability to set criteria for the different secure alternative programs that might be put in place, that might help the elderly, the infirm, the sick and children. And I give an example. In 1996, the INS contracted with the Vera Institute of Justice to run a 3-year demonstration program in New York. It was effective, and it worked. These are the kinds of suggestions that could be handled by the secure alternative program amendment that I offer.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think if my colleagues would studiously and deliberatively think about what this amendment stands for, they would understand that this is simply an advisory amendment that allows the Secretary to consult with very reasonable organizations who understand the importance of providing secure alternatives for detainees who happen to be infirm or children or the elderly. The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, the Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Ethiopian Community Development Center, the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, the Immigrant Children's Advocacy Program, the Kurdish Human Rights Watch, Midwest Immigrant and Human Rights Center, Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance, National Immigration Forum, Political Asylum Project of Austin, U.S. Committee on Refugees and Immigrants, and a number of other

individuals recognize that this is a reasonable approach. It is a risk- based approach that would allow the Secretary to consult to protect these detainees.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman. You have made some very valid points, and I would rise to support Mr. Castle's amendment; but I would appreciate if he would recognize some of the dilemma that we face.

One of my colleagues from Texas, Mr. Ortiz, was one of the first Members, I think, to raise the question of OTMs, which your amendment in part would give us some answers to by providing information for those undocumented aliens who would be coming through the southern border who were not from contiguous countries.

One of the issues that all of us are concerned about is the route of terrorism that might occur and might be utilized by individuals coming from places other than Mexico. As you well know, over the years, unfortunately, we have had a gap in our enforcement, and those individuals have been released on their own recognizance.

My concern is as you have this thoughtful amendment, and I ask you to consider this, we, frankly, do not have the detainee space, detention beds, and the enforcement, internal enforcement officers, and also Border Patrol officers, even though this is a report, to deal with the large numbers of those who are coming in that we have been able to ascertain. In fact, 110,000 OTMs have been released last year due to lack of detention facilities. Legislation that I offered asked for 100,000 detention beds.

So I just raise that with the gentleman. I think the amendment is thoughtful, but we still are without the resources to do what we need to do on these particular detainees or undocumented aliens.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think as long as we collectively, the gentlewoman from California, myself, are raising concerns, and you accept or at least recognize that they exist, I do think getting a handle on the numbers and maybe seeing that they are larger than, and it would be wonderful if they are less than, but if we at least have a definition of the problem. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, my good friend knows that the fence is no substitute for good intelligence.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Transportation Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what the 9/11 Commission announced to America as one of the key elements of the disaster and tragedy of 9/11. Even the families of the 9/11 victims who insisted on such a commission acknowledged that it was faulty and failed intelligence.

In this time of 21st century technology, my good friends and colleagues, who I have great respect for on the other side of the aisle, want to put into place the old Berlin Wall, again the same wall that Ronald Reagan had torn down, the same wall that will be as inept and ineffective and destructive as the Berlin Wall.

I think it is important to note for those who are talking about the area of Laredo, part of the State of Texas, and many of my colleagues from Texas have been champions on this issue, but my friends should realize that the reason for the drug cartels in Nuevo Laredo is because we busted the Colombian drug cartels in Colombia, and they simply moved to Mexico.

So, rather than the old Berlin Wall, again, what we really need is an effective law enforcement at the border. We are going to put the Berlin Wall up, but we are not going to have 15,000 extra Border Patrol agents.

I would offer to say that the Berlin Wall, without law enforcement, is misleading the American people into false security.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just briefly bring to the attention of my colleagues again the point that we are trying to make.

We started out by saying that border security has no divide among Democrats and Republicans. It has no divide among Americans, but there is a right way to do and to enhance border security.

In this legislation, are going to offer the old Berlin Wall, again separating the north from the south, separating us from our Canadian neighbors.

It is interesting, however, that when we ask for 15,000 more border patrol agents, increased recruitment and training of those agents, adding more equipment to those agents, we get a resounding no.

We need to do sensible, comprehensive immigration reform, not one that simply feels good, because the American people need real security.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for his recharacterization of the Berlin Wall. It kept people out, and it kept people in, and that is what we are saying about the largest gated community in the western hemisphere. It will keep the good people of Canada, the good people of the southern border out, the trade and commerce, the friendship that we have developed, and it will cause no extra security to the American people.

Might I suggest to you that the 9/11 Commission reinforced the fact that it is intelligence, good intelligence, that keeps Americans secure. It is good equipment, good resources, good Border Patrol agents that are trained, professionally developed, not the falsehood of a security fence that cannot provide any security.

Might I remind my friends that the Berlin Wall allowed people to jump out

and to jump in. The Berlin Wall was not a secure wall for the East Germans. People escaped from East Germany. People will escape from Mexico and the southern border.

This will only injure the relationships and cause no greater security. I believe this amendment is doomed to fail, and it should fail because the falseness of a security fence will not allow any Americans to sleep good at night.

Let us reinforce the intelligence community of America. Let us reinforce our Border Patrol agents, and let us reinforce friendship. Together, we can fight against terrorists, and we can fight against those who would come into the United States, undocumented, with real immigration reform and a comprehensive immigration plan as offered by many of our colleagues, such as Gutierrez, Kolbe, McCain and Kennedy. Let us talk about comprehensive reform.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1002, I call up the bill (H.R. 6061) to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress return to their districts, as Members of Congress speak with the American people, it is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration.

This is an issue which is absolutely essential if we are to gain the confidence of the American people, if we are going to show to the American people that we can perform the most basic obligation of any government, and that is to secure the Nation's borders.

Now, we passed very comprehensive legislation in December of last year, H.R. 4437, and I was a strong advocate and cosponsor of that, along with Chairman Sensenbrenner, but the reality is that legislation is right now bogged down. What we have to do is we have to prove to the American people and also we have to make substantial progress in combating illegal immigration.

One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the United States Senate and the Congress is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait, and wait for God knows how long until comprehensive legislation is enacted, there is no reason whatsoever why we should not move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. We have to bridge this disconnect between the American people and its government, between the American people and the elite, and we have to show we are responsive.

Now, the legislation today incorporates very much what was already passed by the House with significant Democratic votes back in December. It provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing. It also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security achieve and maintain operational control over the entire border through a virtual fence, deploying cameras, ground sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, integrated surveillance technology, and it also requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide the necessary authority to border personnel to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the authority which is already held by the United States Coast Guard for maritime vessels.

We also realize there is concern at the northern border, and I want to especially thank my colleague from New York (Congressman Reynolds) for his efforts in homeland security, particularly on the northern border. With his help, we were able to enhance the Secure Fence Act to ensure that appropriate technology and infrastructure are being considered and that border security efforts are implemented in a manner that does not stop or deny commerce.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue where the American people are crying out for help. They are crying out for us to take meaningful action. There is, to me, no reason why, and I am trying to anticipate arguments coming against it, basically saying we need comprehensive legislation, and that is a debate we can have. We passed comprehensive legislation in December. But the fact is just because we cannot do everything today doesn't mean that we should do nothing.

So I am saying let us do something very, very positive. Let us pass this legislation, which will build a secure fence, which will build a virtual fence, and would also give the border personnel the assistance and the power that they need.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6061.

Mr. Speaker, I would just make several references, one to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, who is ranking member and does such an outstanding job on the Homeland Security Committee, that I don't think it is ever a waste of taxpayer dollars to go out and hold hearings and listen to what the American people have to say. Sometimes it is good to get away from just reading editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post and actually hear what real people have to say.

Secondly, if we are going to show that we are genuinely against doing nothing, then let's do something and pass legislation which we know the overwhelming majority of the American people want, and that is to build this fence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my good friend from Texas that just a 14-mile fence in San Diego has brought about a significant decrease in crime. And also one of the reasons why we believe this fence is essential is for the humanitarian reason of not allowing so many people to die in the desert the way they do today because there is no fence.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend from California, all of us agree no one provision is going to solve illegal immigration, but this is a significant provision going forward.

In addition, this year's appropriation bill provides for 1,200 new Border Patrol agents which will bring us up to 14,580, an increase of over 80 percent since September 11, 2001, and over 1,200 ICE officers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time both sides have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the real gentleman from Iowa and the real Mr. King.

Could I inquire of my friend from Mississippi if he intends to use all his time with more speakers?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Actually, we have a pinch hitter. I yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes

to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to listen as carefully as I can to the debate, and the only real argument that I hear that really make any sense is that building a fence is not the only answer. I think all of us on this side agree. But we also believe it is a very

essential part of the answer, a significant step; and the fact that, again I repeat, that we can't do everything, does not mean we should do nothing. That is why it is, I believe, essential to go forward with the legislation today, since there is broad support for it; both here in the House and in the Senate, as well, there is support for it, and also among the American people.

Also, as far as the references made to terrorists coming across the southern border, there is no doubt that there have been captured al Qaeda documents which indicate the desire of al Qaeda to bring people across the southern border.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the committee, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is the author of the original amendment on the wall.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

At the outset let me commend and thank my friend Mr. Thompson from Mississippi both for, I believe, the high quality of debate certainly on his side and hopefully on our side today and also for the cooperation that he has given throughout the time that I have been chairman over the last year as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that is more on the minds of the American people than illegal immigration, and there is one part of the bill that we passed last December which has overwhelming support, and that is the construction of a fence along significant parts of the southern border, operational control of the balance of the border, and also to give Border Patrol agents the authority to stop vehicles, to use force to stop vehicles. But, again, the key part of this is operational control and significant control, including the use of a fence along the southern border.

We can tell the American people we have heard the message. We can tell the American people that we are willing to put aside political correctness and do the right thing.

It is legislation that is humane because it will save lives. It is legislation that will work as it was done in San Diego. It is legislation which would tell the American people that we are serious about combating illegal immigration. And rather than wait for everything, we will do what we can and we will just step up to the plate and get it done.

With that, I urge passage of H.R. 6061.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let me just state at the outset, again, the great regard I have for Mr. Thompson and also for Mr. Reyes. But in that context, I must say that I strongly disagree with their motion to recommit, primarily because even though this is the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the motion to recommit nowhere even mentions the word ``fence.'' And it is significant that they seem unwilling to address this fundamental issue.

We believe on our side and a solid majority of the House of Representatives believed last December, and indeed a majority of the United States Senate believed, that a fence is essential, that a fence is important. And that is why it was passed last December, that is why the overwhelming majority of the American people support it today, and that is why we are bringing it forward now.

The reality is that comprehensive legislation is not going to be moving. But, again, the American people are crying out; they are demanding that we take action. This is an issue which goes right to the heart of America today, whether you live on the border or whether you live in the north, the Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, it is an issue. As Members went back to their districts this summer, last spring, the one issue that resonated completely was the issue of stopping illegal immigration. One proven way is to build a fence and to get operational control over the entire border.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

If I could reclaim my time, I do believe that it is significant that in a fence act, even though fencing was mentioned in December legislation passed in the House, even though fencing was mentioned in the Senate bill, there is no reference to it, which to me is bowing to political correctness. We are up front about what we are asking for.

Also, I don't believe we should abdicate responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security. We should make it clear what we want, tell them what we want. If they want some variations within there, fine. But we feel so strongly about this, the American people feel so strongly about it, I believe it is essential that we make it loud and clear what we do want.

Now, having said that, on the issue, for instance, of Border Patrol agents, the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 will include 1,200 new Border Patrol agents. That will get us up to 14,580, an increase of almost 50 percent over the last several years. There are 1,012 new ICE officers, which will get us up to 11,500. This appears to be about as many as the system can absorb as we train new officers, and we are going forward with that. If more are needed, I pledge to the ranking member we will work to bring that about as we go into the next session.

But it is essential that we do this today to tell the American people that we have gotten the message, that we are willing to take the action that is needed, we are willing to go on the line this is needed, this is essential; and we are calling for it, we are demanding it, we are voting for it. The easiest way to say that we are going to do the right thing on illegal immigration, to stop illegal immigration, and also to be humane and stop the deaths in the desert.

I was at the desert with Speaker Hastert and Congressman Rush and Congresswoman Miller this past July, went to Yuma and Nogales in Arizona, we helicoptered across the desert. To me, a fence is absolutely essential in certain parts of that border. That is what this is about. Let's put aside political correctness, let's have the guts to do the right thing.

I urge defeat of the Democratic motion to recommit and passage of the underlying bill, H.R. 6061.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding, and I would like to associate myself with the majority whip's comments, as he explained the comprehensive approach that we are arguing for, supporting on the floor of the House.

I raised this earlier, a letter from four governors, two Republicans Governor Schwarzenegger from California and Governor Perry from Texas, the Governor of Arizona and the Governor of New Mexico. They begged this body to enforce a response to immigration by making it a comprehensive response. They begged us to stop holding field hearings that do little but stir up discontent, and they asked this Congress to get to work, and that is what Democrats are saying.

This whole idea of a fence is not a new idea. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that the fence language is in the Senate bill. A simple conference could move a comprehensive response forward, but more importantly, as the Christian Science Monitor said, the fence is only a tactic. It is not a policy. And that is what has happened in this Congress. We failed in the overall policy of addressing the question of immigration. And so we fail our Border Patrol agents, we fail our Customs and Border Protection agents to the extent that they do not have enough resources to have what we call secondary inspections.

So what we are talking about is adding 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, making sure we have 12,000 new agents;

creating 2,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent positions, having coordination between the northern and southern border. They don't talk to each other. Creating detention beds, having a virtual reality.

Does anybody know what we will do with those individuals that are caught? We are creating 25,000 new detention beds. That is what Democrats are talking about, comprehensive reform.

Then I might suggest that the other aspect of what we are saying is that we must have surveillance. We must have physical infrastructure. We have got to be able to address this question from both sides, not a single one-target issue. This issue before us is dividing and divisive.

We ask that you support the Democratic motion to recommit but, more importantly, that you answer the question, not a tactic, Mr. Speaker, but yet a policy.

And I close by saying read the newspapers. This is a drug fight at the border. Where is the DEA? Where is the FBI? Where is more funding? That is really what we are addressing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6061, the so-called ``Secure Fence Act of 2006.'' I oppose the bill because it neither a serious nor comprehensive measure to secure our nation's borders. It does not provide any specific dollar amounts to build the fence called for in the bill, and nowhere does the bill authorize the additional Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Customs Inspectors needed to secure the border. In short, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6061 is an election-year gimmick intended to obscure the fact that the majority party has done nothing of consequence in the past 5 years to secure the nation's borders from terrorist attack. It is time to try a new approach; it is time for a new direction. The Democratic Substitute offered by Mr. Thompson, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, is a large step in the right direction and that is why I find that legislative proposal far superior to H.R. 6061.

Mr. Speaker, building walls and fences is not a panacea and a ``one size fits all'' approach is a wholly unrealistic and inadequate means of securing the border. Although some communities seem to approve of border fences, many others do not. For instance, Alex Perrone, the Mayor of Calexico, California, is opposed to additional fences. Calexico already has a border crossing as well as a chain-link fence that separates it from its Mexican neighbor. According to Mayor Perrone, the border towns have had a close relationship for more than 100 years, and a massive fence would strain their friendship and symbiotic relationship. Mayor Perrone believes that it would change how our neighbors view us and how we do business.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner W. Ralph Basham, it does not make sense to construct fences along the border. Stemming the flow of illegal immigration and drug trafficking requires a combination of manpower, technology, and infrastructure, not just barriers.

History shows that even the most substantial walls can be breached. In California, the border fence has been circumvented by tunneling (20 tunnels have been discovered) and by going around both ends of the fence. This has diverted illegal traffic to more remote areas, but it has not stopped people from crossing. It just makes crossing more dangerous and increases reliance on professional smugglers. The diversion to more desolate areas has exacted a heavy toll in human lives. Moving through the mountains and scorching-hot deserts has resulted in many deaths. The number of persons who have died crossing the border since the fences were constructed is conservatively estimated at 3,600. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way to secure our borders.

a new Direction on Border Security

What we should do instead is follow the direction charted for us in the Thompson Substitute which, among other things:

1. Establishes Operational Control of All Borders and Ports by requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a comprehensive border security strategy that increases deployment of Border Patrol agents, provides increased surveillance through the use of technology, and ensures the free flow of legitimate travel and trade. It also mandates placement of technology to monitor every mile of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and permits the emergency deployment of up to 1,000 additional U.S. Border Patrol agents for the purpose of patrolling and defending the international border.

2. Provides Significant New Resources Annually to Secure the Border including 3,000 new Border Patrol agents (12,000 total) and a new Border Patrol training facility to expand capacity and an increase in Border Patrol agent and inspector pay from GS-11 to GS-13. There are substantial increases in personnel authorized for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Marshals, U.S. Attorneys, Immigration Judges, Coast Guard, Investigators of Fraudulent Schemes and Documents, Port of entry inspectors, and Canine Enforcement Teams.

3. Provides the Equipment and Resources Needed to Get the Job Done. The Thompson Substitute recognizes the importance of providing the tools needed to secure our borders by authorizing the purchase of additional helicopters, power boats, motor vehicles, portable computers, radio communications, hand-held global positioning system devices, night vision equipment, body armor, and weapons.

4. Ends the ``Catch and Release'' Practice. To maintain effective control over the border, we must end the Bush Administration's practice of ``catch and release.'' The Substitute makes this possible by authorizing 100,000 additional detentions bed spaces through FY 2010 to assist with the deportation of undocumented individuals. It also increases the number of Detention and Removal Officers by 1,000 through FY 2010 to manage the additional detention facilities and capacity and to enhance the removal process.

5. Promotes International Policies to Deter Illegal Immigration by requiring DHS to report to Congress on the progress of cross-border security agreements signed between Mexico and Canada and the United States, including the Smart Border Accord and the Security Partnership for Prosperity.

6. Orders DHS to Locate Undocumented Immigrants that Have Been Set Free Under the ``Catch and Release'' program and instructs DHS to locate all 110,000 of those undocumented immigrants and deal with these cases, deporting those who are deportable or providing other results as required by law.

7. Finally, the Thompson Substitute Directs DHS to:

Locate and Deport ALL Criminal Aliens;

Deport ALL Deportable Criminal Aliens Serving Sentences in State or Federal Correctional Facilities;

Ensure that Local and State Correctional Facilities Cooperate in the Deportation of Criminal Aliens at the End of Criminal Sentences;

Improve and Strengthen Border and Immigration Enforcement; and

Return Deported Aliens to Countries that Delay or Deny Return of their Citizens.

Mr. Speaker, were the majority party in this House serious about securing the nation's borders, it would eagerly embrace and adopt the Thompson Substitute. A vote for H.R. 6061 is a vote to continue down the same wrong-headed path that got us into the fix we are in. It is foolish to maintain the status quo and stay the course. It is time for change. It is time for a new direction.

I urge you therefore to vote against H.R. 6061, the ``Secure Fence'' (but insecure Border) Act.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to rise in support of this very intelligent amendment. You know, most people do not realize that we actually have fewer beds, detention space in America today than we did on September 11. We have 700 fewer beds today than we did on September 11, 2001.

I have a bill that has not been scheduled for action that relates to unaccompanied minor children, and I would like to just mention the plight of one young boy, Malik Jarno, who came to the United States in his Boy Scout uniform to go to a Boy Scout jamboree. He is slightly retarded and he ended up, a long story I will not bore you with, being arrested. He did not commit any crime and was put in a jail, a 16-year- old boy in his Boy Scout uniform, put in a jail with adults. It is absolutely wrong to treat children in that manner.

The gentlewoman's amendment would make sure that children are treated appropriately while their matters are being reviewed. It does not say what the outcome has got to be, but just that we do not put children in prison with adults. Civilized nations do not do that. And I commend the gentlewoman for her amendment. It would also increase the ability to hold those who are not currently able to be held since, for reasons we cannot understand, the Bush administration has 700 fewer beds today than we did on September 11, 2001.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is a decent person, and I respect that. But I do not know if he is aware of the government's dismal record of arresting the 16-year-old in his Boy Scout uniform having attended the International Boy Scout Jamboree and then putting him in jail with adult prisoners. The record is not a pretty one, and I just note that the Secretary retains full power to lock up anyone he wants to if they are a criminal, but we have a very serious problem.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should get this information, and, actually, I believe that, under current law, the department is required to give us this information. In fact, there is an Office of Immigration Statistics buried in the bureaucracy of this department that is supposed to provide information to us on a variety of subjects.

I would just note that this is an agency that not only cannot administer, it is an agency that cannot count. We have had, for example, and it is a different issue, certainly, than terrorism, but I think several years in the last half decade where they have failed to count the number of visas when there were limits on employment visas, and then they say a big oops; they have given too many. And sometimes they even try to sneak around and deduct the overassessment from the next year's. They cannot count because they do not have any technology.

I think it would be quite a dandy idea to find out not only who has been apprehended from countries other than those who are immediately adjacent to us but a whole variety of other information, statistical information, about these individuals.

Again, I appreciate that the author is in good faith trying to make this happen. I will make him a side bet, maybe lunch, that we will never get this information any more than we get the information on the H-1B program that usually is due every year and usually we get it somewhere between 1, 2 and even 3 years late and wrong. I would like to get the information, but none of this is really going to happen until the inept administration of this function is improved. And I, regrettably, do not see that with the new Brownie coming on.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the chairman of the committee a question: I understand from the Democrats on the Rules Committee that we have not yet received the manager's amendment that has been discussed so frequently on the floor today to the underlying bill. We have not seen anything. Do you have any idea when Members will see this manager's amendment that has been discussed today?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that.

Before recognizing my colleague, I just wanted to mention that on Mr. Castle's amendment there are several other issues that I think we need to consider, assuming they are going to pay any attention to this at all, which I have questions about. We do have expedited removal provisions, and the data-keeping is not very good there.

I would note also that part of our problem is that not only do we have inadequate enforcement at the border; we are just not enforcing the laws at the border, but we do not have the personnel to actually adjudicate matters once we have apprehended people.

Now, the expedited removal at the border, it is controversial among some, but I think not at points of entry. Judgments can be made. There are problems that the General Accounting Office has told us relative to asylum, the application asylum laws, that do need to be addressed. But it is not at all clear that these numbers are going to be folded into this, and I think we ought to be aware of that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. The amendment calls on the Mexican Government to work closely with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to take immediate action to prevent the occurrence of rape along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Rape is a horrendous crime. Every 2\1/2\ minutes somewhere in the United States someone is sexually assaulted, and only 36 percent of the rapes are reported to law enforcement in the United States. It is safe to assume that the rate of reporting is considerably less along the border.

The women who are crossing our border are extremely vulnerable, and they are unlikely to tell law enforcement officials that they were raped while trying to cross the border without their papers. The smugglers know that these women are vulnerable, and they take advantage of them. I think in many ways this amendment makes clear what many have been talking about today, and that is the need to gain control of the situation at the border.

I have talked today a lot about how dysfunctional the administration of our laws has been. We do not have enough Border Patrol agents; they are not properly equipped; we do not have enough prosecutors; we do not have enough judicial personnel; we are citing and releasing individuals and letting them go. We have a chaotic situation at the border, and we need to create an orderly situation at our borders. We need to take control of it. It is not occurring right now.

Part of that, and again this has been discussed, is to regularize the ability of individuals who want to come and be part of the American Dream so that they do not have to be with smugglers, vulnerable victims of crime, victims of rape; that there is some orderly manner for individuals to move back and forth across the border, to do the jobs that we know are not going to get done without them.

Earlier today, not on the record, someone said, Well, you know, if this bill passes, that is the end of salads in America. I think we need to contemplate the role that immigrant labor plays in the area of agriculture, fast food, tourism, the hotel industry, the tourist industry and the like. I think it is a mistake that the underlying bill does not deal with that issue.

I do agree, however, that the gentlewoman's amendment really calling on our two governments to coordinate, to fight this horrendous crime of rape is well intentioned, it is something I can support; and I hope it does some good.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 needs to address a loophole in our immigration system. I have introduced this amendment which suspends, not cancels, but suspends temporarily the Visa Waiver Program until the machine-readable and tamper-resistant biometric identification system mandated by the PATRIOT Act to be the cornerstone of the entry-exit system is fully operational.

Until we have the technical and human resources to secure our points of entry, we cannot afford to allow visitors to come to the United States without prescreening them prior to arrival. Despite the fact that the United Kingdom is one of our Nation's closest friends and allies, the London subway bombings earlier this year were executed in large part by British citizens with known ties to terrorism.

We know that terrorists like Zacharias Moussaui and Richard Reid exploited the Visa Waiver Program to travel to the United States. Do we want individuals like these to fly to America unchecked and to attack our subway system in the name of terrorist groups like al Qaeda under the cloak of the Visa Waiver Program? Do we want French citizens with Islamofascist mindsets to get a free pass through Customs? If not, we need to suspend this program until we are equipped to check the criminal and terrorist backgrounds of every visitor who arrives at a point of entry and to confirm the identity of each visitor using biometric identifiers.

The success and failure of the Visa Waiver Program can trace its roots back to 1986 when it was passed as part of the Immigration Reform Control Act. As many of my colleagues know, what we left undone in 1986 is in large part why we need to consider a new immigration reform law in 2005 that is consistent with the recent reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. The Visa Waiver Program was only designed to be a temporary program for a small and select group of nations. Today, 27 countries are eligible under visa waivers, opening the door widely, widely, Mr. Chairman, for an unscreened terrorist to attack the United States.

Yesterday, the United States USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 passed by a vote of 251-174, a strong endorsement for securing our Nation against terrorism. The PATRIOT Act acknowledges the problem of the Visa Waiver Program, and I have introduced this amendment to suspend the program until the solution made possible by the PATRIOT Act can realistically take effect. This is an issue that extends beyond apprehending illegal immigrants and actually works to secure our points of entry from those who desire to attack our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the 9/11 Families for a Secure America in full support of this amendment.

9/11 Families for a Secure America, December 15, 2005.

Staten Island, NY,

Hon. Phil Gingrey,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Gingrey, 9/11 Families for a Secure America fully

supports your amendment to H.R. 4437 to suspend the Visa

Waiver Program until the automated entry-exit control system

authorized by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 is fully implemented.

The recent civil disturbances in France make it quite clear

that the time is past when citizens of particular countries

should be granted blanket permission to enter the United

States without first applying for a visa. Many of the nations

of Europe, after decades of permitting mass immigration from

nations that sponsor terrorism have created a situation where

large numbers of Islamic extremists, though closely connected

to the terrorism that originates in countries such as Saudi

Arabia, are themselves citizens or native born in any of a

dozen European nations. The result is that Islamic extremism

is no longer limited to persons born

in or citizens of Middle Eastern nations. For this reason,

citizens of European countries should be subject to the same

visa application process which applies to the other nations

of the world.

If Islamic extremists commit another 9/11 it will not make

any difference to the victims of that attack that the people

responsible carried French passports rather than ones issued

by Iran, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon.

Sincerely,

The Board of Directors,

9/11 Families for a Secure America

Bruce DeCell, Sergeant, NYPD (retired), Father-in-law of

Mark Petrocelli, age 29.

Bill Doyle, father of Joseph, age 24, WTC North Tower.

Lynn Faulkner, husband of Wendy, WTC South Tower.

Peter and Jan Gadiel, parents of James, age 23, WTC, North

Tower 103rd floor.

Grace Godshalk, mother of William R. Godshalk, age 35, WTC

South Tower 89th floor.

Joan Molinaro, mother of firefighter Carl Molinaro.

Will Sekzer, Detective Sergeant (retired) NYPD, father of

Jason Sekzer, age 31, WTC North Tower 105th floor.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that spirit of cooperation. I know there are some concerns about the amendment. Indeed, a major airline in my district, in my State, has some concern over it, and people who are concerned about tourism and the economic effects of this amendment.

But I think this is a situation where, when we look back and think about 9/11, it would probably cost our economy $3 trillion if we have another attack of that magnitude. The cost of that, of reduced tourism, would pale in comparison to another $3 trillion cost to our economy if that should occur. I sincerely appreciate the chairman's willingness to cooperate with us, and I look forward to working with him on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this important amendment.

In many ways, the Border Protection, Antiterterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 is a return to basics for a complete overhaul of our system of immigration. An integral component of the basics is the long overdue need for securing the most populous areas of our southern border with physical barriers. Like locking the door to your house before turning on the alarm, it only makes sense to begin enforcement of our border with physical barriers.

My colleagues, Chairman Hunter, Chairman Dreier and Mr. Royce, have attested to the success of the border fence in California. I believe we can apply this success to other parts of our borders using additional fencing and 21st century technology.

We need to stop the fluidness of our border before we consider any other immigration idea. In the words of a doctor, we need to stop the bleeding before we can stitch the wound, and constructing barriers on our borders is a critical first step toward curing this patient who has long suffered from inadequate therapy.