Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6061) to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1002 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend, from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only.

This rule provides for 1 hour debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This legislation, much of which has already been passed by the House as part of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Control Act of 2005, is a positive step in regaining operational control of our borders and achieving broad reform of the immigration process.

This legislation is the product of five formal hearings in standing committees during this Congress alone. It also draws on a number of hearings in past Congresses and a wealth of information learned through field hearings conducted over the August recess by Members of this Republican majority.

Last month, many Members of this body, who were greatly concerned with addressing the problem of our porous borders, traveled across the country to determine what steps could be taken to harden our borders and ensure that those who would wish to harm us cannot exploit this well-documented weakness.

Like many other Members, over August I traveled to our border. I traveled with Congressmen Charlie Dent, Henry Cuellar, John Doolittle, and Jo Bonner to meet with Border Patrol agents from Laredo, Texas, and to see firsthand the needs of our country as it relates to border protection.

We discussed with these dedicated men and women on the front line of our border how best to address the rampant drug and human smuggling that occurs in an area along our southern border. We learned firsthand of the challenges faced by our brave Border Patrol agents in combating the flood of criminal activity that occurs along our southern border on a daily basis. The information we learned on this trip, and the information learned from dozens of other field hearings just like this from this past August, all have been incorporated in the legislation that we will hope to take up today.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 advances the rule of law and protects our Nation by providing our Border Patrol with the tools they need to achieve operational control of the border. The language closely mirrors sections 101, 1002, and 1003 of the border bill already passed by the House, and authorizes more than 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along the southwest border with prioritized placement at critical, highly populated areas. It also requires an evaluation of infrastructure needs along the northern border of America.

The Secure Fence Act also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security achieve and maintain operational control over the entire border through a ``virtual fence'' utilizing leading edge technology and through established best practices to create optimum results at the most efficient cost. This includes the deployment of cameras, ground sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, and integrated surveillance technology.

This legislation further requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide all necessary authority to border personnel to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the authority already held by United States Coast Guard for maritime vessels.

Finally, this legislation requires DHS to assess our Nation's vulnerability on our northern border and to address how they can be effectively and efficiently resolved.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a commonsense step that this Congress can take to deal with problems of alien smuggling, illicit drug running, and illegal immigration. The House has already passed a more comprehensive bill that enjoyed the support of 239 bipartisan Members. But because a broader package of reforms may not be enacted into law this year, our Republican leadership has decided to take the least controversial portions of this broader reform effort and to pass them in pieces that the other body can then take up and pass.

I would like to commend Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner for their vision and leadership in bringing this commonsense bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank my dear friend, Mr. Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Chairman Pete King, who is chairman of Homeland Security, and all the members of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees for their hard work in doing the research and hearings that were necessary to bring this bill to the floor.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation to provide operational control of our borders.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Fullerton, California, chairman of the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee, Chairman Royce.

Mr. Reyes, by the way, this entire body not only recognizes but appreciates your service to this Nation, not only for the professionalism that you continue to exhibit but that which you did for your 26 years.

I would say to the gentleman two things, if I could politely suggest to him that he knows it is not truthful to say that we are going to have a 2,000-mile fence along the border. That has not been suggested. We have never talked about that, and to insinuate that would simply be untruthful.

We have not suggested that, and this bill very specifically, and I would like to have the gentleman, if he would like to get a copy, relates to adding 10 miles of fencing that extends 10 miles west of the Tecate, California port entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; 10 miles west of Calexico, California to 5 miles east of Douglas, Arizona; 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso; extending 5 miles northwest of Del Rio to 5 miles southeast of Eagle Pass, Texas; extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry. This will be literally 100 miles worth of fencing. It will be 700 miles worth of fencing when you add up the total. What we are trying to do is to take the things that we heard firsthand that the men and women who work on the border said. This is the priority, not 2,000 miles.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I would like to reclaim my time. We have talked about this since 2001. The fact of the matter is that this bill is very specific. It aims directly at where the problem is. I would like to also note that not one mile of fencing is in the Democrat plan, not even 15 feet worth of fencing. I don't know how you can have a comprehensive plan when you talk directly to Border Patrol agents who are in Laredo, Texas and other points along the border, and they say their number one concern, they are asked is the fencing, first of all, to allow them for their own safety, their own safety. The men and women of law enforcement who are down there have asked for, and, in the Republican bill, will get the fencing that they have asked for.

I will not at this time, but I know that the gentleman has lots of time left to continue the debate.

We need to make sure that we are doing what the men and women of law enforcement are asking for. What else are they asking for? They are also asking for, and I have seen firsthand, the need to better protect those people, the unassuming people, who illegally are entering our country, who do so at great risk and peril. These fences, which are in our bill, not their bill, not 10 feet of fencing that is in their bill, will allow our Border Patrol agents to effectively deal with this huge number of people who are coming here to wall off areas that are dangerous for our men and women, as well as people who are just dumped off on the border late at night and told, go that way.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken time, Republicans and Democrats have taken time to come to our border and see what we need. It is the Republicans that heard from the Border Patrol agents and others. We need to help protect this country, yes, but we need to do it to protect people who many times get in trouble, many times who need desperate help, and it is to help save our agents as well as those people.

I am proud of my bill. For the characterization that this is a do- nothing bill, I would say, I am sorry that you didn't hear what was said at these important hearings and did something about it. That is all this bill is. It is to take what we heard of the most immediate concerns. We know we have a debate with the Senate. We know we have got some problems trying to negotiate that through, but this should not be held hostage.

I would like to go directly, Mr. Speaker, to H.R. 6061, which is what we are discussing here, but bringing in to incorporate the things that we know we have already done under our FY07 Department of Homeland Security appropriations. We are going to provide for $19.6 billion for border protection.

What we are going to do, as I recall it is darn near September, and as soon as this month is over with we want to have new money. We are going to pay for this fencing. To assume or to say that it is not going to happen would really be, I think, less than honest. The administration is working with this body. We are opening up this information to the other party that had been a part of the hearings, and they know that we are going to have money that is available directly for the needs of what this bill is about.

But what this bill specifically does is it says this is the priority at this time. We believe the fencing is there for good and intended purposes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the vice chairman of the Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

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

My colleagues and good friends not only from Texas, Mr. Reyes, but also the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Texas have spoken very eloquently about the needs of this great Nation. I have every reason to believe all three of those individuals joined many other Members of this body in hearing from people about the needs of the Border Patrol, the communities along the borders and the things which they would want and need.

This bill is very specific. It talks about the types of things that would be necessary and needed on an interim basis.

Both you and I, Mr. Speaker, understand that we have passed bills many times before this that are more comprehensive, that are larger, that contain money, that do a lot of things that will enable us to get closer. The bottom line is, we need this interim step to get done now. It comes as a result of the hearings, it comes as a result of feedback from the Border Patrol, it comes as a result of communities who have asked us to please help them. So we are going to do that.

I am going to ask Members to vote ``aye.'' I am going to ask them to support this bill. And it is my prediction, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a bipartisan-passed bill today on the floor of the House of Representatives because it represents the balance and integrity of not only our Speaker, Dennis Hastert, but also John Boehner and our great chairman of Homeland Security, Pete King.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 1002, Rule for H.R. 6061 Secure Fence Act

of 2006

In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the

following:

``(2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed

in Section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative

Reyes of Texas or Representative Thompson of Mississippi or a

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any

point of order or demand for division of the question, shall

be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for

60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3)''

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

``Sec. 2. The amendment by Representatives Reyes (TX) and

Thompson (MS) referred to in Section 1 is as follows:

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 606

Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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 gentleman from Texas, my friend, Mr. Sessions, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation, which is nothing more than political gamesmanship in the run-up to the mid-term election. Sounds good, does nothing.

To paraphrase the Vice President, it seems to me that the majority is in the last throes of keeping control of the House and is throwing vacuous public policy at us in a vain attempt to fool the American public. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people are much smarter than that. They can see

through these charades to see that this country needs a new direction.

This bill is a case in point. If you were to believe my colleague, my friend from Texas, Mr. Sessions, and the other proponents of this legislation, this bill would lead to the construction of a fence along some parts of the United States-Mexican border. But guess what? This bill does not authorize a single nickel or dime for construction.

I asked the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, our colleague, and my friend, Peter King of New York, yesterday, point-blank, in the Rules Committee, ``Does this bill fund construction of a fence along our border?'' The transcript of the Rules Committee hearing will back me up when I say that Chairman King answered with, ``No, but.'' And Members of the majority party always seem to have an excuse at the ready when they pretend to legislate but simply pontificate.

If Americans want to see results instead of rhetoric, if taxpayers would like solutions instead of sound bites, and hard work instead of horse trading, I suggest you take a short look, and it won't take much longer, at the accomplishments of this Congress.

I don't intend to waste too much of our time on this lazy attempt at legislating. I will let others do that. However, there are a few other things to consider when thinking about this bill.

This so-called border security bill not only doesn't spend a nickel, a penny, or a dime of money to construct a fence, it also does not increase the number of Border Patrol agents, customs, and immigration enforcement authorities.

It doesn't help law enforcement. It doesn't provide accountability, and it won't stop illegal immigration into this country.

I said in last night's meeting, there ain't no mountain high enough and there ain't no river valley wide enough to stop the tide of what is happening on our border unless we do it comprehensively.

Get real, folks. If the Congress had any real intent in making this country safer and more secure, they would have allowed the ranking Democratic member of the Homeland Security Committee to offer a substitute bill.

If our colleague and my very good friend, Mr. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, had an opportunity to offer his legislation, then we could have had a serious debate. But, of course, the majority has no interest in allowing the House to work its will; thus, closed this rule. That only happens in a democracy. But had Mr. Thompson been allowed to offer his substitute, we would have seen what a real homeland security bill looks like.

The Thompson legislation would have provided the technology, personnel and equipment needed to monitor and secure every mile of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And there is no one in this body or in America that is concerned about this issue that does not understand the need to secure our borders. Everybody knows that.

The Thompson legislation authorized 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents. It would have allowed for the creation of 2,000 more immigration officials and hundreds more detention officials. It would have enlisted 250 more Federal marshals and more than 70 new judgeships to deal strictly with immigration issues.

Yes, all of this could have been considered today on the House floor. It would have been considered if the majority party was truly interested in protecting the American people instead of their own positions as the majority. Sounds good, does nothing.

I invite my colleague, Mr. Sessions, to point out in this legislation where any money is spent to put a border along the United States-Mexico border.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this closed rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), if the gentleman you described was in the back of a car, in the trunk, then he came through a port of entry. He didn't ride across no mountain, and you could have built every fence on Earth and he still could have been in the back of the car.

Now let me straighten you out on something else. We already, with the Hunter amendment to the border security measure, passed the identical language that is in here. This is nothing but political gamesmanship when all is said and done. And for you to say that we have to do this before we can authorize puts the lie to you being in the majority. You have the power to authorize. You could authorize. Don't tell the American people that we have to wait for some mish-mash language that has no money in it to build a fence, that that is the only way that we can do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Royce to respond.

So you also favor a fence along the Canadian border because terrorists have come through from that area as well?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Royce, I am tired of studying and the American people are tired of studying. The Thompson substitute that was not allowed because of this closed rule does, in fact, do what is necessary for secure borders.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am more than pleased to yield 5 minutes to a colleague that I served with on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and who, for 26 years, was in charge of border security, the chief of two major regions of border security and who happened to be at the hearings that you were at, Mr. Royce, my distinguished colleague, Silvestre Reyes.

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

Mr. Speaker, before yielding again to Mr. Reyes, I would say to Mr. Souder, there is nobody here that has opposition. We have already passed a measure that has 370 miles of fencing. Why don't the people over here just fess up? Their argument is against the Senate plan that has a guest worker program in it. It already has fence in it, so that is not even the issue.

What I continue to ask, and I invite Mr. Sessions again to answer, is whether or not the measure we are discussing today has one penny, one nickel or one dime in it to build a fence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to Mr. Reyes to respond to some of the matters that were brought to our attention earlier.

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

Mr. Speaker, this place never ceases to amaze me. Our friend from Michigan talks about the southern border. I gather that there is no illegal immigration on the northern border which she lives close to.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee and author of the substitute that was not allowed under this closed rule, that would handle the problems of comprehensive border control as well as immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, just to say to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, last night in the Rules Committee I asked him a simple question. He said he can't for the life of him understand what our opposition is, just because we can't do everything, we do nothing.

This measure that we are discussing today does nothing other than provide midterm yacking before the election. There are no dollars, not a penny, not a nickel, not a dime in this measure to build any fence. We have already passed legislation that has 370 miles of fences in it.

So why are we here? We have got an election coming up. That is why we are here. So you have to do things to put on a bumper sticker.

The American public can see through this charade. There isn't opposition to

protecting the border. But we are saying that you cannot come forward with something that does nothing, and that is what this is. Nothing. Talk. We need action.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has attended a lot of these hearings that we are talking about and is a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield an additional 1 minute to my colleague from Texas, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Silvestre Reyes.

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

As I close, Mr. Speaker, I say what I said earlier, and that is the measure that we are discussing today sounds good, is needed, in part, along with comprehensive immigration reform, but does nothing.

Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee I misquoted the song, but the intent was the same: There ain't no mountain high enough and there ain't no river wide enough to stop people from seeking a better opportunity for themselves.

Some years ago outside Boynton Beach in Florida, I was among the first people to arrive at the scene of Haitian immigrants who were seeking to enter our country illegally. They all had died, and I stepped over the body of a nude pregnant woman. That hurt me an awful lot, that in seeking freedom and opportunity she and her unborn child were in that posture. I have seen many a situation where Cubans have lost their lives seeking to come to this country.

We need to get a grip and understand that we cannot become neoisolationists in a society as diverse as our own and that the most brilliant people that I know serve here in the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle and those persons are very capable of advancing comprehensive immigration reform that will address all of our needs, including border security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and make in order the substitute offered by Homeland Security Ranking Member Thompson and Representative Reyes. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night but was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the Reyes-Thompson substitute provides for a comprehensive approach to our border security, not simply the inadequate piecemeal approach called for in the underlying bill. The substitute requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive border security strategy with increased Border Patrol agent deployment as well as increased surveillance using advanced technology. It provides long-term financial support for significant increases in personnel to help the Border Patrol meet its mission, including Border Patrol agents, Immigration and Customs agents, United States marshals, Coast Guard personnel, port of entry inspectors, canine enforcement teams, and other vital personnel necessary to guard and protect our borders more effectively. It will provide needed equipment such as helicopters, power boats, radio communications, night vision equipment, body armor, and other crucial tools in the war against terror.

The substitute also reestablishes the 9/11 Commission to allow them to fulfill their mission and to provide oversight and accountability.

I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up this comprehensive and responsible alternative that will actually do something to help make this Nation less vulnerable to those from outside who would do us harm.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. Speaker, it has been my privilege here in Congress to serve as the Drug Policy chairman, and also as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, and thus, during most of my career, I have been on both the north and south border. A number of years ago, prior to the creation of the Homeland Security Committee, we did a major border report, the most comprehensive border report ever done in the history of this Congress.

In that process, we had done roughly, I believe, six hearings on the Mexican border and three on the Canadian border, and I have personally visited nearly every border crossing on both the north and south border with very few exceptions.

In that course of time, it becomes apparent that some of what Mr. Reyes has been saying is absolutely true. We do not have enough money for the Border Patrol. We do not have a salary scale with which to keep them in the Border Patrol, and I have worked over multiple years to keep increasing that.

In fact, we have tried to increase the Border Patrol here in Congress, because it is not easy to just stay standing in the sand, in the heat, day after day. We have tried to vary their positions, but when they get other opportunities to be air marshals, when they get other opportunities to take other posts, they tend to leave.

We, in spite of our hiring, have been putting hundreds and thousands through training and can barely gain in the numbers. We need to be more aggressive, and we need to have a realistic pay scale and job opportunities for the people who go into our Border Patrol, but absolutely we need to ramp up at a faster rate the number of Border Patrol people. We need to make sure they have adequate facilities with them, cars, equipment, radios, that when some of the drug terrorists or people who are moving large numbers of people come out with more military weapons and guns than our Border Patrol have, and in greater numbers, we have a human problem at the border, and we need to understand that in many cases those who are trying to invade us are armed, and armed more aggressively.

We may have places where we have one agent or two agents with 100 to 200 people coming at them. It is a very difficult job, and we ought to raise, defend, expand and give the equipment to our Border Patrol. That is what we do in the Homeland Security bill, and we need to ramp it up faster.

But there is another problem here, and my friend Mr. Reyes and I have been at joint hearings, we have traveled together, and I very much respect his position. But with the people along the border, it is a much more controversial issue. But as we look at a broader immigration strategy in the United States, and I absolutely agree with that, we have three different problems, the illegal immigration problem,

the terrorism problem and the narcotics and contraband problem. Narcotics and contraband would also include chemical, nuclear and biological weapons and parts.

Basically, if you can't protect your border, you are not safe. If you can't protect your border, you don't know who is here. If you can't protect your border, we cannot stop what will be a flood now of meth precursors and meth coming across the border now that we have changed our internal laws.

This is a comprehensive question, and we need a comprehensive solution. But part of that is a fence, and you have to have different types of fencing, physical fencing, fences that keep people out or at least going over the top so the Border Patrol can kind of bend behind them and get them in groups, rather than having to station 20,000 Border Patrol agents who cannot cover 1,000 miles. You have to have fencing to drive them to certain locations to give time for the Border Patrol to sag and work with that. It is not realistic.

That is why the fences work well in San Diego, why the fences worked well in El Paso. In the areas where there are gaps in those fences, and it is difficult in Mr. Reyes' home area in El Paso, is where the road comes so close to the line or the railroad comes close, and there isn't fencing, and there is a huge challenge for the Border Patrol.

Now, we have some places, let me give you an illustration, which I have talked to Chairman Hunter, and I don't believe is in the 700 miles, but we have talked about we need to add it, that is over in west Texas in the sector, I believe it is Marfa, just right at the edge of the Marfa sector just east of El Paso. There we have a place called Neely's crossing.

We recently had a case where a truck was moving what we believe was 10,000 pounds of marijuana, 10,000 pounds, 5 tons. Our Border Patrol came up on the vehicle.

They negotiated with them and they said they got stuck in the sand, because when they saw the Border Patrol coming they tried to back up and they got stuck. They got about 1,700 pounds, they estimate, out; and then they came back with their guns and said basically, we have got a tow vehicle here. You can't take this. Now, if you can smuggle 10,000 pounds of marijuana, you can certainly get nuclear, chemical and biological.

Now, why are they running trucks through that area? The Rio Grande in that area is not a continuous, huge, wide river. It is pockets of water. There are only certain places in the Rio Grande and other places on the border where you can take a truck that handles 10,000 pounds because it sinks.

But there is gravel in that area, and guess what? They have a bulldozer on the other side. Every time they try to put up a border on that side, they bring the bulldozer across from the Mexican side and bulldoze it down. They bulldoze it down. When I was there with the sector chiefs on either side, they started up the bulldozer and they said, ``Mr. Souder, you need to get out of here. It is not safe anymore.'' Our agents had to retreat when they came out with their guns.

This is a huge problem at Neely's Crossing. That is one of the areas where there has to be at a minimum a barrier fence that can take a 40- mile-an-hour hit from a large vehicle, because no Border Patrol agent can stop it.

In New Mexico, as I was visiting in New Mexico, we pioneered a fence there because there have been vehicles at high speed and knocking down some of these fences that will now take that kind of hit, as well as they are doing it in Yuma, Arizona. People are coming into the Barry Goldwater Air Range. We have to either stop our training or we are going to drop a bomb on these individuals.

They are going through the Organ Pipe Cactus Park, and some of the most beautiful hiking trails in America are no longer safe. We had a park ranger killed there. It is chaos in Organ Pipe.

In South Padre Island National Park, they have, they said, drug dealers coming up, all sorts of things. It is in times in danger of being overrun. We have fish and wildlife areas where habitat is being absolutely destroyed by the number and the quantity of illegal immigrants moving through.

We need to have more Border Patrol agents, but they need the supplemental fencing to help control that. And it will not reduce the number of Border Patrol agents. It will decrease the demand.

The thing the American people need to understand is, this will be expensive. We can't work out our internal controls and figure out whether we are going to do work visas, what we are going to do for the people here, if we don't have secure IDs and we don't have a fence because, as I just heard in one of the hearings I conducted for Ms. Harris, Mrs. Myrick, Ms. Foxx and Mr. McHenry in North Carolina, they had a lady whose daughter and son-in-law were killed in an automobile wreck, one was killed, one is still comatose, and they had been deported three times for drunk driving before. Until we control the Southwest border, until we figure out how to get secure IDs, all this other talk is basically irrelevant.

I favor trying to work this out, but we can't; when you have multiple people calling in with similar names and just picture IDs and no fingerprints, you can't run employer enforcement. And if you are going to deport them, if you don't have a way to stop them at the border, it won't work.

This needs to be incremental, it needs to be comprehensive, but it has got to start with the border, and fencing is a key part of that. The agents will always be the critical part, because they will come around the fences, they will come over the fences, but it is one way to control the size of the vehicles, the size of the weapons, the quantity that is coming at you. And I strongly believe that we need this fence, and I do not understand, I do not understand, the Democratic opposition to a fence.