Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006.

This rule is furtherance of a process that can be summed up in two words--a joke.

After weeks of negotiations, Republicans refused to share the final conference report on legislation that was supposed to be bipartisan.

Indeed, this is legislation that builds on what my colleague Loretta Sanchez did last Congress and that Jane Harman took up this Congress.

Last night at 7:30, a conference report meeting was called and it was missing the key ingredient--a conference report.

After opening statements, Chairman Peter King closed the meeting, telling us it was his intention ``that amendments would be offered.''

And, at 11:30 last night, we finally received the report with a very clear P.S. from Mr. King--there would be no amendments offered.

His actions contradicted the will of this House, which voted yesterday 281-140 to instruct conferees to consider specific issues that the amendments to be offered would have covered.

Now, the Committee on Homeland Security has been a bipartisan committee to date. These questionable processes undermine our homeland security efforts--all in the name of politics.

I know the elections are important to my colleagues across the aisle but they should not take precedent over America's homeland security efforts.

Adding even more insult to the process, the Republicans have attached internet gambling to the port security bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask someone to explain to me how prohibiting internet gambling is more important to our homeland security than making our trains, subways, and buses safe?

You will hear excuses about why we can't do mass transit and rail security and that we will ``take it up soon.''

When?

Madrid happened in 2004. London happened in 2005. Mumbai happened only a few months ago.

Are we waiting for New York City's Long Island Railroad to be attacked to pass sensible security for trains?

If so, at least we'll have comfort in knowing that Americans can't bet on the Superbowl online.

Now, I have signed on to the conference report because there are good things, but they aren't enough.

Frankly, this body can and should do better. We need to put America's security first and foremost before politics.

I urge all Members to oppose the rule.

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

Previous Question for Rule on Conference Report for H.R. 4954--``SAFE''

Port Act

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill

(H.R. 4954) To improve maritime and cargo security through

enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes. All points

of order against the conference report and against its

consideration are waived. The conference report shall be

considered as read.

Sec. 2. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection

(b) is hereby adopted.

(b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a)

is a concurrent resolution

(1) which has no preamble;

(2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for

Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the

bill H.R. 4954''; and

(3) the text of which is as follows:

``That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 4954 entitled''

An Act to improve maritime and cargo security through

enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes', the Clerk

of the House of Representatives is hereby authorized and

directed to make the following corrections:

``(1) Insert title V of the Senate amendment to the bill

(relating to the Rail Security Act of 2006).

``(2) Insert title VII of the Senate amendment to the bill

(relating to mass transit security).

``(3) Insert title IX of the Senate amendment to the bill

(relating to improved motor carrier, bus, and hazardous

material security).

``(4) Insert the following sections of title XI of the

Senate amendment to the bill:

``(A) Section 1101 (relating to certain TSA personnel

limitations not to apply).

``(B) Section 1102 (relating to the Rural Policing

Institute).

``(C) Section 1103 (relating to evacuation in emergencies).

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

Mr. Speaker, once again we are here on the floor debating another security bill that will not fully secure America. This bill does a lot to strengthen port security, but it leaves a number of glaring gaps.

I want to thank Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Harman. They are the chief architects of the best ideas in this bill. They have been true champions on port security since the early days of this committee. I want to thank Mr. Lungren and Mr. King for working with us on this bill on a bipartisan basis, although I was very disappointed that this process broke down in the last few days.

Additionally, Homeland Security staff on both sides of the aisle made sure the process was an inclusive one. We heard positive insight from industry, first responders, port security experts. I appreciate all of them for their help.

But despite all our efforts, at the end of the day this measure falls short. Once again House Republicans have turned their back on everyday working folks who rely on buses and trains to get to work. When offered an opportunity by the Senate to secure our mass transit and rail security, they chose to do nothing.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this port bill has become just another act in the play the House Republicans have billed as ``homeland security'' month. They could have offered America a star performance, and instead, Mr. Speaker, they delivered mediocrity.

Let me serve as a narrator of this story for a few moments:

Act one, protecting ponies. The week before the fifth anniversary of 9/11, the House leadership was more concerned about protecting horses than protecting our ports.

Act two, border security. Thinking good fences make good neighbors, they squandered the little time we had left in this session to revote a fence bill. As the Senate passes the fence bill tonight, Americans should feel safe in their homes. America will have a 700-mile fence across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Well, Mr. Speaker, not really. The appropriations bill we passed today paid for barely half of that fence. I am sure terrorists and others crossing the border are quivering in their boots at this half- baked half fence.

Let us move to act three, FEMA. The Committee on Homeland Security tried to fix FEMA and give first responders the interoperability they needed. Instead of fully funding the reorganization, Republicans chose to do ``FEMA on the cheap,'' leaving our police, firefighters, and EMTs without the ability to talk to one another.

And here we are at this late hour beginning act four, the closing act in this political comedy, port security. H.R. 4954, as passed by the House, was a good bill overall. The Senate improved upon the bill by, among other things, addressing rail and mass transit security. Unfortunately, this sham conference process denied consideration of the Senate ideas as well as Democratic amendments to better protect our Nation. And that, after this body overwhelmingly approved my motion to instruct the conferees to accept the Senate position on rail and mass transit security, the conference Chair denied the will of this body. Why do not the Republicans want to eliminate this critical vulnerability now? We have the time. So why not now?

The American people would much rather see this body work through the night to get homeland security right than go home to run for reelections. Instead of calling this month Homeland Security Month, we should rename it Amateur Hour Month, because that is all we have seen from this Congress.

While I have enormous issues with the process and the scope of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I still intend to vote for it. I make this pledge. In the next Congress, we will absolutely be back here to finish the job and get homeland security right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lungren for the accurate recap of the early parts of the act. But like most early parts of the act, people forget how it ends; and what I am saying to you is, while bipartisanship might be good, the process is incomplete.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), one of original authors of the bill.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

I have four.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member from Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), ranking member on the subcommittee with responsibility for ports.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the conferees on this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas (Ms. Berkley).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my chairman that the motion to instruct said to include rail and mass transit to the conferees. That is in response to your response to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas. We more or less said ``do it'' from the House perspective, and it wasn't done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, homeland security is not a red or blue State issue. It is a red, white and blue issue. It is an American issue. When al Qaeda struck us 5 years ago, it did not distinguish its victims. The terrorists did not care if you were from a red or blue State.

Party distinctions mattered little to terrorists. Mother nature, too, had little use for arbitrary partisan labels as we learned with Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Those terrible storms inflicted suffering on all the people of the gulf coast.

The American people expect that homeland security is one of our top national priorities, and the 9/11 Commission, the bipartisan panel we created, said it must be a priority. Congress told that panel to get to the bottom of what happened on 9/11 and give us a road map to guard against future attacks.

They did their part, Madam Speaker. This do-nothing, do-over Congress, squandered time and resources and is now trying to pass off do-little rhetoric as real action.

Where has all of that gotten us? Where in the world has Congress been for 5 years? That is the question that the 9/11 Commission chair and vice-chair asked a few weeks ago on the fifth anniversary of the attacks, as this Congress chose to spend the week leading up to the 9/ 11 anniversary on a horse slaughter bill, and little else.

Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton lamented the lack of urgency across the board. Democrats agree with Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton, the adoption of the 9/11 Commission recommendations should be a no-brainer. And unless this Congress acts immediately, it will add do-not-care to its do- nothing label.

When we adjourn in a few days, Madam Speaker, this Congress will have failed, for example, to enact risk-based first responder funding. As a result, Washington and New York, areas we know the terrorists still want to attack, will still be vulnerable.

Congress has done even worse on interoperable communications. Just this week the Republicans have refused to include funding and resources in FEMA provisions attached to the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

The House leadership can spend a day talking about protecting the lives of horses on the floor, but can't find the time to debate legislation that will protect the lives of our first responders. I don't know about you, Madam Speaker, but as a former volunteer firefighter, I would trade a horse any day for interoperable communications.

Madam Speaker, Democrats stand united in calling for the enactment of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We insist, no, demand that Congress act immediately to provide first responders with the equipment, training and resources they need.

We call for stronger transportation and critical infrastructure security planning and support. It saddens me that the House in discussing the port security bill with the Senate refuses to provide funding for protecting subways, trains and buses across our Nation.

Did we not learn anything from the attacks in London, Madrid and Mumbai? Democrats want to secure our border, and we want to do it right.

Five years ago the President announced that he was creating an Office of Homeland Security to provide a robust and effective border security program. Half a decade later, Southwest Governors were forced to declare border emergencies, and the National Guard was sent to the U.S.-Mexican border to assist with the growing border crisis.

Yet despite the urgency of the situation, Madam Speaker, this Congress refuses to allow us to vote on a complete overhaul of our immigration system, adequate funding for border personnel, equipment and resources for border personnel, a system for addressing what to do with 12 million people without documentation in this country.

Instead, Madam Speaker, the House leadership chose to vote and revote on a fence without setting aside enough money to build it. Democrats also believe we must strengthen the relationship between the intelligence community and State and local law enforcement.

Today, as ranking member of Homeland Security, I am releasing a report entitled, ``LEAP'', Law Enforcement Assistance and Partnership strategy, that lays out a strategy for doing this.

Democrats absolutely believe we need clear and robust Congressional oversight of homeland security efforts. Too much money has been wasted in our current efforts with few checks in place.

Lastly, Democrats have and will continue to ensure that the war on terrorism does not cost us our privacy and civil liberties. As the Gilmore Commission told us a few years ago, counterterrorism initiatives must not undermine our unalienable rights. These rights are essential to the strength and security of our Nation, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Madam Speaker, I agree with the Gilmore Commission that there is probably nothing more strategic that our Nation must do than ensure our civil liberties.

Madam Speaker, it is time for this Congress to stand up and do something. This Congress cannot continue to be the Congress that left security behind.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for allowing me to speak on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Rogers for his commitment to stemming waste, fraud and abuse in the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill, H.R. 6162, would require the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General to immediately review any Secure Border Initiative contract valued at $20 million or more. By requiring a review once this amount has been triggered, the Inspector General can immediately review the cost requirement, performance objectives and timelines for the SBI project.

This trigger builds accountability into every contract made for the Secure Border Initiative and will provide the American public with some certainty about where their money is going. This bill also will allow the Inspector General to express its concerns if they find unsatisfactory practices early on.

They will not have to wait until all the money is out the door and excuses are being made before they get involved in the oversight of this multibillion dollar project.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to emphasize that this review would include the assessment of the inclusion of small, minority, and women-owned businesses in any subcontracting plans, an area of constant challenge for the Department.

I guess some people would wonder why this kind of oversight is necessary or whether we are being fair. Let me tell you why this kind of oversight is necessary for a project of this size.

First of all, SBInet is expected to cost around $2.5 billion. Under the predecessors to Secure Border, ISIS and American Shield, we have spent over $429 million and protected only 4 percent of the border. That is about $100 million for every 1 percent of the border. It is not an understatement to say that this has not been a cost-effective use of funds.

The Inspector General has found that the Department's failure in these past programs has been due to poor planning, bad equipment purchases, and spotty implementation. We are told once again that this program will solve the problems of our porous border through the use of integrated and coordinated technology and manpower. It seems like I have heard this before, Mr. Speaker.

We have not seen a detailed rendering of the Department's overall strategy. And in fact, this procurement allows the industry to pitch solutions based not on the Department's objectives. As I have said many times, I support the use of technology as a force-multiplier in the effort to secure our borders. However, I also support the effective use of our taxpayers' money. We all want to see this initiative fare better than its failed predecessors, but that will only happen with effective oversight and management of this program.

I commend Mr. Rogers again and I commend my ranking member, Mr. Meek, for their support of this legislation. I look forward not only to the passage of this legislation, but I look forward to working with both these gentlemen to make sure that with any other large contracts we provide similar oversight to make sure that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion to instruct conferees. By passing this motion, we will ensure that the House conferees take seriously our Nation's efforts to secure the national transportation infrastructure.

We have seen a lot of piecemeal legislation coming out of the House of Representatives. Just last week, Republicans tried to shortchange the American people on border security by authorizing a fence without sufficient funds to build it. Some folks seem to think that piecemeal legislation will do just fine in time for the election. We have a chance here today to ensure that piecemeal and politics do not prevail over security and doing what is right by the American people.

We have the choice: we can partially secure or fully secure the national transportation infrastructure. This choice should be a no- brainer. That is why I encourage this body to support this motion to instruct. This motion incorporates many of the important security measures passed by the Senate, but neglected by the House.

Among other things, Mr. Speaker, this motion would instruct conferees to support improvements to security for America's seaports and mass transit and rail systems. We know about the very real threat to our rail and mass transit systems. We remember what happened in Tokyo, Mumbai, London, and Spain. We mourn the hundreds of innocent civilians that have been killed and wounded by terrorist attacks on a major rail system.

But despite all of this, Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress has not adequately focused on rail and public transportation security. Similarly, the administration has not yet accepted that rail and public transportation is a Federal responsibility.

At a congressional hearing on March 29, Tracey Henke of DHS told Members of Congress that ``aviation security by law is a Federal responsibility. That is not the case for transit security.'' Quite simply, this administration has flawed vision of securing America.

The Senate has offered us a way to solve some of these issues, and the sensible thing to do is to support these solutions. It helps our communities for Congress to support vulnerability assessments for freight and passenger rail transportation.

It is good policy to require the submission of prioritized recommendations for improving rail security in a report to Congress. It makes good sense for the government to use this information as a basis for allocating grants and establishing security improvement priorities, and it makes sense to study the costs and feasibility of required security screening for passengers, baggage, and cargo on passenger trains.

It is also good for our Nation's security, Mr. Speaker, to create a rail security R&D program to improve freight and intercity passenger rail security. It makes sense to reduce the vulnerability of train stations and equipment to explosives and hazardous chemical, biological and radioactive substances.

Democrats, Mr. Speaker, offered many of these provisions in the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2006, and I am glad to see that they found their way to the floor today.

Another transportation mode that we should instruct conferees on is aviation security. London officials thwarted the terrorist plot to destroy 10 planes bound for this country. Next time we might not be so lucky. We know that aviation remains a major target for terrorists, so we should absolutely ensure that the House conferees do not ignore improvements to aviation security. Anything less would shortchange our communities and their safety.

This motion to instruct, Mr. Speaker, would instruct conferees to retain language adopted in the Senate that will ensure that TSA has enough screeners to keep our aviation system secure.

There is little justification for an arbitrary 45,000 screener cap. Such a cap ties the hands of TSA just as it is trying to expand its activities in the airport to include behavioral recognition and the checking of identification against boarding passes. TSA should not be boot-strapped by this arbitrary cap.

The Senate approach of dealing with this issue is an important one that we should accept.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs conferees to take a total and complete approach to transportation and maritime security. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to piecemeal security legislation. Just as we can't secure our borders with a small fence, we can't secure our homeland without focusing on all major threats. But how can we go back to our constituents and say we didn't secure America's transportation system when we had a chance? This body can do better, and this motion will make sure we put America's security first. I urge all Members to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, an original person promoting port security, Ms. Harman.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the

gentlewoman from Orange County, California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

This motion to recommit with instructions is clearly intended to make the bill better. We clearly have rail and safety issues still outstanding. What I have tried to prepare for Congress is an opportunity to get it right. Piecemealing is not the way to go. We absolutely can fix it right here, right now with this motion to instruct. If we do it, we can all go home feeling that America will be safer. If we don't, we leave substantial work yet to be done.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to give thanks to Sue Ramanathan, Democratic deputy staff director and chief counsel of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security.

Sue was one of the original staff members of the Select Committee on Homeland Security from the 108th Congress, and has been a dedicated public servant whose leadership on border security and immigration issues has helped us proficiently tackle those hard issues and whose counsel has been a vital element of our homeland security efforts.

Sue began her tenure on Capitol Hill as a legislative fellow for Senator Joseph I. Lieberman and as a member of the Washington, DC, staff of the American Bar Association before joining my colleague Zoe Lofgren as her senior policy advisor and counsel. While working for Congresswoman Lofgren, Sue earned an LL.M in international and comparative law from Georgetown University Law Center. It was on behalf of Congresswoman Lofgren that Sue was able to contribute to the conversation surrounding our Nation's immigration policies, the same policies that she and her family were first subject to as immigrants to our great Nation. The Congresswoman joins me in commending Sue today, as demonstrated by her comments to follow.

She left the Hill for a brief period to work on a Presidential campaign, before returning in 2004 to join the Select Committee of Homeland Security under Ranking Member Jim Turner of Texas. At the beginning of this Congress, when I became ranking member, I named Sue chief counsel and deputy staff director. In addition to helping develop the legislative and oversight activities of the Democratic Committee staff, Sue also led our immigration and border security team efforts. In this capacity, Sue played a critical role in implementing the committee's legislative agenda.

Mr. Speaker, this was no small task.

One particular debate that I will not soon forget pertained to the House's consideration of comprehensive border security legislation this past year. Committee staff spent countless sleepless nights and early mornings working on behalf of the American people to mitigate the risk posed by this Nation's porous borders. Sue coordinated the committee's floor time on H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. In particular, she worked closely with my colleague Silvestre Reyes on the Democratic motion to recommit. Mr. Reyes had this to say about Sue, ``as a member of Congress representing a district on the U.S.-Mexico border, my staff and I had the pleasure of working with Sue Ramanathan on several pieces of homeland security legislation in recent years. In every instance, I was impressed by her knowledge, professionalism, and dedication. Though we are sorry to see her leave the staff of the Homeland Security Committee, we are fortunate that she will continue to work on the many homeland security issues facing our country in her new position. We wish her all the best.''

In addition, she was one of the committee's key staffers on the committee's first two authorization bills, as well as on legislation to correct and restructure the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Sue's expertise and dedication will be deeply missed in the House. I am comforted, however, by the fact that Sue's insight and expertise will not be lost to the Members of this House. Unlike so many others who turn in their congressional ID cards for large paychecks in the private sector, Sue has maintained her commitment to public service. Thankfully, she will remain a public servant, dedicating this new chapter in her career in the Homeland Security and Justice Division at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, and helping to ensure Congress's critical check and balance on the executive branch of Government. Mr. Speaker, I wish Sue, the committee's favorite Cherry Hill native and Rutgers graduate, the best in her new venture. I look forward to seeing great things from Sue and her new family at GAO as they, undoubtedly, work to ensure that America gets homeland security right once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Intelligence Community Audit Act of 2006.

Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) has joined me in introducing this important measure. I am also pleased to report that a companion bill will be introduced in the Senate by Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

This bill, the Intelligence Community Audit Act of 2006, reaffirms the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct for Congress audits and evaluations of the intelligence community--including audits and evaluations pertaining to financial transactions, programs, and information sharing and other activities. It also prescribes the security procedures that GAO must follow in conducting audits for congressional intelligence oversight committees of intelligence sources and methods, or covert actions.

There is a pressing need for this legislation. With the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the federal government now encompasses 19 distinct components that have intelligence responsibilities. Ensuring that these components--which range from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Treasury--are cooperating and performing their missions effectively is critical to our national security and winning the war on terrorism.

But it is not just federal coordination and cooperation which is at issue. There is also a pressing need for state and local law enforcement officials to get the information they need to protect our constituents. Unfortunately, this has not happened. In a recent survey, the National Governor's Association noted that fully 70 percent of state homeland security directors are dissatisfied with the specificity of homeland security information they receive from federal sources, and the fully 55 percent who are disappointed with its actionable quality. Our state law enforcement officials need information to protect our constituents.

And we in Congress need information to conduct our oversight functions. The availability of information to appropriate congressional committees is a paramount concern for this nation's system of checks and balances. The ability of the GAO to conduct thorough and nonpartisan reviews is well known. But what is not well known is the hurdles they sometimes face in conducting oversight. Earlier this year, shortly after GAO released a report on federal government policies relating to the sharing of terrorism-related and sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information (GAO-06-385). Specifically, the DNI declined to comment on a draft version of the report because it considered GAO's work in this non-sensitive area a ``review of intelligence activities'' that was ``beyond GAO's purview.'' But this bill makes it clear that the DNI cannot evade Congressional oversight by lumping the sharing of unclassified information and other non- sensitive matters together with the kinds of intelligence activities that understandably must be held to a stricter standard.

This bill makes it clear that Congress has a real and continuing interest in reviews of the basic functions of the intelligence community, such as sharing of information with state and local law enforcement officials and transportation security. The events of 911 made it clear that systemic weaknesses in these areas can cost lives.

I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this bill.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I wrote you to take action on measures that would fulfill many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

On 9/11, the Commission's Republican Chair and Democratic Vice Chair expressed bipartisan concern that 5 years later, some of the most ``elementary and fundamental'' recommendations haven't been done. They said that ``there is nothing more important on the agenda of any policymaker than to make the people of this country more secure.''

Now they have told us, among other things, that we need to absolutely do interoperability.

We all remember the firefighters who lost their lives in the Twin Towers. And we remember the havoc in New Orleans during Katrina.

In light of that, Mr. Speaker, in light of the Republican leadership's unwillingness to move legislation on interoperability, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1251, offered by Mrs. Lowey of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for those kind words.

I rise this evening in strong support of H.R. 4942, the Promoting Antiterrorism Capabilities Through International Cooperation Act, which Chairman King and I introduced along with Chairman Reichert and Ranking Member Pascrell and other Members. I am happy to see this bill finally make it to the House floor.

I first raised the idea of this bill in January 2005, soon after I became ranking member. I know my Democratic colleagues had pushed for it in the 108th Congress as well. While it took a while to get my colleagues on board, I was glad when they finally did. The product before us today is a good one.

Personally, I expressly want to thank Chris Beck and Todd Gee from my staff and Andy Weiss from the majority staff for their hard work on this bill.

The threat of terrorism is an international one. Terrorist attacks occur all over the world, and we must promote international cooperation to stop them.

Cooperation in developing antiterrorism technology should be a top priority. The different challenges faced by our many friends around the world have resulted in new approaches that the United States should leverage to protect our citizens.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the United States has a history of conducting scientific and technological collaborations with Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and others. The Department of Homeland Security has participated in some of these partnerships with foreign governments and others. This legislation will encourage and further strengthen those efforts, as well as direct the Department to look to new partners beyond those we already have.

I am especially heartened that this bill will strengthen the means for protecting our Nation's agriculture and public health from exotic diseases. Emerging diseases that can affect both animals and humans are a threat to the world's population. Active collaboration with scientists in Africa, where many of these diseases originate, should be promoted. I am glad this bill encourages that collaboration.

Too often, Mr. Speaker, the United States presents a posture of unilateralism to the world. I hope that through programs like the one authorized in this legislation we encourage a more cooperative approach.

I strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, the Administration requested that the Border Patrol increase its ranks by 6,000 more agents by 2008. This Congress has failed to act to meet this goal.

This bill is a good start towards ensuring we at least provide better salaries to the Border Patrol agents we already have.

But this bill only addresses part of the border security equation. It fails to address the other half--Customs and Border Protection Officers.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that the Border Patrol and the Customs and Border Protection Officer Corps both face recruitment and retention problems.

As we know, the Border Patrol agents guard our borders, which is a tough job. But this bill overlooks the demanding and dangerous job that Customs and Border Protection Officers perform when they inspect cargo and people entering the United States at the various Ports of Entry. Both of these jobs are an important part of efforts to protect our borders, and the people doing these jobs should be justly compensated.

The only way we can address these employment issues is by exploring all options available to this Congress and the Department through the legislative and oversight process, not simply relying on an election year gimmick of passing a bill that will not likely be acted on by the Senate nor enacted into law.

A meaningful full-step forward would be having a hearing on this bill and requesting all of the stakeholders to come and testify before our Committee on how to address the employment problems in the Customs and Border Protection Directorate.

Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill because I know this is a good step towards fully securing our country. But, we will only be making real progress when we hire enough Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection Officers and make sure both these groups are better paid and equipped.

Madam Speaker, it is with great disappointment that I stand before you today to discuss a bill that fails once again to provide us with a comprehensive approach to handling border security.

Last week, Republicans introduced a border fence bill which was exactly what they voted against in December 2005. Today we are going to discuss three bills already considered by this body. In other words, the Republican leadership is forcing us to participate in their cheap political gambit to mislead the public. Simply put, the Republicans have morphed from a ``do-nothing'' Congress to a ``do-over'' Congress. Unfortunately, we continue to have a long way to go, and we will get nowhere with this piecemeal approach they are masterminding.

The Bush administration has had almost 6 years, and the Republican Congress 11 years, to secure the border.

Since 9/11, House Republicans rejected eight Democratic amendments to enhance border security resources. If these Democratic amendments had been adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 more immigration agents along our borders that now exist.

On December 16, 2005, all 218 House Republicans voting that day opposed a Democratic motion to recommit to H.R. 4437 to improve border security and immigration enforcement by fulfilling the 9/11 Commission's border security recommendations.

Fifty days before election day, the House Republican leadership has scheduled votes on bills we have already voted on. As usual, Republicans are all talk, but cheap on action to securing the border. Last week they voted on a border fence bill, but refused to provide the money needed to build a 700-mile fence along the Texas-Mexico border.

If Republicans were serious, they would have moved forward with a House-Senate conference that protects United States borders, strengthens our Nation's security and addresses the Nation's immigration problems comprehensively. Instead, they spent the summer conducting 22 sham hearings across the Nation.

Republicans talk about the fence as if it is the sole solution. Meanwhile, on September 15, DEA agents discovered yet another tunnel located beneath a residence in Calexico, California, and extending approximately 400 feet to a residence in Mexicali, Mexico.

We are spending $1.5 billion per week in Iraq, but the Republican leadership will not even commit to funding to secure our Nation's borders.

Democrats do not want to pass the buck on State and local governments to enforce immigration laws simply while the Republican-led Congress and administration fail to properly fund border security officers. States and localities are already robbing Peter to pay Paul by using a huge amount of their homeland security grant funding to secure the border, purchase communications equipment, and fortify bridges, ports and buildings.

Democrats do not want to stay the course on President Bush and the Republicans' failed border enforcement.

Madam Speaker, we need a comprehensive border security and immigration plan, not a piecemeal plan.

Mr. Speaker, integrity is having the wisdom to say what you believe and the courage to do what you say.

Here on the floor of this House, we talk about our beliefs in democracy, we talk about preserving and protecting the Constitution, we talk about the importance of voting. But talk is not enough. We must act. And if we enact this bill, we will fail the second test of integrity, to have your actions in line with your words.

In 2002, we passed the Help America Vote Act. HAVA set a baseline for voter identification requirements. Only three States in the Nation have interpreted HAVA to require photo identification at the ballot box. Each of these State laws is being challenged. Yesterday the Georgia court struck down the State's voter ID law. They said it violated the State constitution.

States that require photo ID at the ballot box provide a provisional ballot if a voter does not have an ID, but the bill before us today will go a giant step further. Without a valid ID, a voter can only get a provisional ballot if they can prove citizenship. So even if you voted for years, were born in this country and served in the military, you could be turned away.

Mr. Speaker, I am from Mississippi, and I know what voter suppression is when I see it. We stand here today ready to short-circuit the judicial process and impose a system that all 50 States have outright rejected.

My colleagues on the other side of this aisle have stated that this bill will help stamp out voter fraud, but look at the facts. The Department of Justice statistics show that over 196 million votes have been cast in Federal elections. Only 52 individuals have been convicted of voter fraud. In Ohio, 9 million votes were cast in the last two elections and only four cases of ineligible voters were found. In Wisconsin, the U.S. Attorney General conducted an investigation into alleged widespread voter fraud. He found 14 cases.

Today we are asked to mandate that State and local elections officials in every State train an army of volunteer poll workers to spot an acceptable photo ID, but we give them no money to do so.

Why the rush? This requirement will create massive confusion at the polling sites all over the country. People who have never had a photo ID will be required to produce it. Many people will have an ID. Some will go home and get their ID and come back. But others will not. Some of these people who are turned away may not have a driver's license or a passport at home. They will not come back. And they will wonder, as my fellow Mississippian Fannie Lou Hamer wondered, is this America?

I know it is hard for some folk to understand, but there are millions of people in this country that will not have an acceptable ID.

Mr. Speaker, I have found what WMD really stands for, weapons of mass disenfranchisement, and it is here in this bill. An election with integrity is one in which every eligible voter is encouraged to vote. I oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, where I stand, I have to say the majority sure seem like ponies. Last week, we were down here on the floor voting on a horse protection bill. This week, the majority is again on the floor having us vote on a bill that has already passed.

This ``one trick pony'' approach to legislating is stale. The majority is out of fresh ideas on how to secure the border, and it shows.

Last night, I offered an amendment in Rules that would have provided an all-encompassing approach to border security and ensured that every mile of the border is monitored and secured 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

A fence alone won't protect us from those who want to harm us. Even the Department of Homeland Security has come to realize that we need an integrated approach that combines personnel, equipment, technology and infrastructure.

The timing of this vote, Mr. Speaker, is bizarre. Why are we telling the Department to build a fence before they have come up with a comprehensive solution? Are we really going to tie up billions and billions in border security dollars to build a fence when the Border Patrol and ICE need more agents and investigators? Estimates on what it would cost to just build the fence alone is in the neighborhood of $7 billion. Once you add the maintenance costs, we are looking at possibly doubling that number.

My amendment, that the Rules Committee rejected, would have provided the Border Patrol with 3,000 more agents. We know they need the help. Why else would the National Guard be there now? It also would have added 2,000 new ICE investigators and 250 detention officers. It would have provided the men and women who police the border with equipment they need to get the job done. It would have given them helicopters, all-terrain vehicles, radio communication, GPS devices and night-vision goggles.

There are many more provisions in my bill that I am prepared to discuss today, had my amendment been allowed to be considered. But given that there are many speakers who wish to be recognized, Mr. Speaker, I will close.

The only thing I want to share is that people talk about operational control. The only way you can do it is comprehensively.

This is an unfunded mandate. There are no dollars attached to it. Republicans always talk about unfunded mandates. The priority at this time is not a fence, it is a comprehensive strategy, and because we have no comprehensive strategy for border protection at this time, I am in opposition, Mr. Speaker, to the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House continues its efforts to be known as the ``do-nothing Congress'' by voting on a bill that has already been voted on before. In December, we voted on this fence issue as part of the border legislation offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. King. Then, the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive bill, the McCain-Bush bill, and House Republicans had the opportunity to work with the Senate on a bill that would be voted on and sent to the President to be made into law, but the Republicans decided to do nothing.

Then they decided rather than doing nothing they would waste taxpayers' dollars to hold hearings over the summer, hearings that showed that a lot of their ideas, such as the very fence being discussed today, weren't so good. Rather than listening to the American people and creating laws that actually do something, the Republicans have decided to spend the next 2 weeks voting on things we have already voted on.

Mr. Speaker, voting on a fence today, especially when it is already part of legislation to be moved, isn't going to solve our border security woes. Indeed, voting on a fence without allocating funds to pay for it is just another example of Republican efforts to sell security on the cheap to the American people.

I have seen estimates that just to build the fence is going to cost us at least $7 billion. Where is the money coming from to pay for it? I am from rural Mississippi, and I know that when you build a fence you have to maintain it, mend it, and fix it. How much is it going to cost to maintain this 700-mile fence? Who is going to do it? This fence is starting to feel like the bridge to nowhere that Congress once considered.

Mr. Speaker, the British statesman Edmund Burke once said ``All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Congress to stop being the ``do-nothing Congress.'' It is time for us to take a real stand against the forces of evil and move forward with existing legislation to secure our borders. Instead of spinning our wheels passing the same bill over and over again, let us move forward.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Speaker, in response to my chairman, I have heard a fence called a lot of things, but hearing it called a ``humanitarian gesture'' is something very new. I guess you learn something every time you are on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Grijalva, the gentleman from Arizona.

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

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

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

In reference to what the last speaker said, that this is not a fence bill, looking at the title, it is the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Undoubtedly, there is some misunderstanding. The other point I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, we have already voted on this matter. It is already on the books, been sent to the Senate, and basically it is there. We could be spending significant time doing other items like adding Border Patrol agents to a bill, technology, other equipment that we already know that we need. But this unfunded mandate in terms of this fence is unfortunate, because we are just doing and repeating what we have already done in the past.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for two more speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have two speakers en route, one we just talked to, who assures us he will be here shortly.

Mr. Chairman, do you have someone else?

Mr. Speaker, putting a fence up really doesn't stop people if you don't put the support system around it. So I would encourage my colleagues at some point to look at comprehensive border security and that approach, as well as developing a comprehensive border security plan. Just because somebody happens to be Jordanian or Iranian or what have you does not make them illegal, and I think what we have to do is do it the right way. If you have a fence and don't have staff to support it, you still haven't done much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say at this time that there is bipartisan opposition to this bill. I would like to yield 3 minutes to a border State Representative, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form.

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard over and over again from Republicans that good fences make good neighbors. Ironically, that tag line comes from a Robert Frost poem entitled ``Mending Wall'' that seemingly questions whether a wall in need of repair is worth the effort. Even more ironic in this is the fact that this poem is about mending a fence, something that this bill does not pay for. In fact, H.R. 6061 does not even pay for the fence to be built. If border security is so important, why do my colleagues across the aisle refuse to do it right?

Mr. Reyes and I are offering this motion to recommit to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security has the resources and capabilities to address our border security problems. This motion to recommit would secure our borders and protect the American people.

That is not to say there is not more to be done. Congress still must face the issues of comprehensive immigration reform, which Republicans refuse to bring to the floor and have used parliamentary procedure to keep it from discussion today. But if Republicans insist on voting yet again on border security, let's do it right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the former Border Patrol chief from El Paso, Texas, my colleague Silvestre Reyes.

Mr. Speaker, this Democratic motion to recommit solves the problem. We hope we can get support from the majority of the body.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of all those whose lives were affected by September 11, 2001. I rise in memory of those who lost their lives that fateful day. I rise in support of the families and friends who lost loved ones and exhibited courage and strength in the face of adversity, and I rise in support of the firemen, police, EMTs, soldiers and others who put lives at risk every day to protect our Nation against terrorism.

Five years ago, every town, small and large, was jolted by 9/11. In the days and months that followed, Members of this very body vowed to do whatever it took to ensure that an attack like 9/11 never repeated itself. We joined hands and crossed party lines to stand up against an enemy that did not see us as Democrats or Republicans, but only as Americans. We made promises and swore that we would do everything we could to secure America.

Five years later, we are still making promises and America is still not as safe as it should be. And five years later, Mr. Speaker, the bipartisanship we had after 9/11 is mostly gone.

Indeed, just yesterday, I was disappointed to read that my colleagues across the aisle called Democrats ``clueless'' on national security. Meanwhile, the House majority leader had the audacity to question whether Democrats were ``more interested in safeguarding the rights of accused terrorists than protecting Americans.''

All I can say is, shame on you all for putting politics and partisanship above the security of our communities. Shame on you for using the memory of 9/11 during a charged political season as a coverup for Congress' do-nothing approach to homeland security.

There is nothing wrong with drafting a bipartisan resolution to honor our Nation and respect the memory of 9/11, but there is something wrong when this body takes upon itself to pat itself on the back about a few past deeds when we have left the bulk of the work of homeland security unfinished.

I ask anyone in this room to tell me whether this resolution gives first responders effective interoperability so that they have the tools and funding to talk to one another, or provide for a sufficient number of Border Patrol or ICE agents as well as equipment and technology so we don't have to tax an overworked National Guard to defend the border, or whether or not this resolution provides adequate funding for protecting our skies, our subways and our ports, or whether or not this resolution reverses the ongoing trend of wasting homeland security funds on bloated Beltway contractors that are making out with taxpayer dollars while security is left along the wayside. I think not, Mr. Speaker.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, ``What you don't do can be a destructive force,'' and that is what I fear. What this Congress does not do today will leave us less secure tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I sent a letter to you urging that the House act on a number of proposed homeland security measures that have been offered in this Congress, some dating back as early as 2005. My letter details 21 specific bills that have been written by Members of Congress to protect our country and close security gaps plaguing our Nation's rail and mass transit security, emergency communications, chemical facilities security, cargo container security and much more. I have not yet heard back on my letter. These bills deserve an up or down vote or consideration as stand alone measures by this House.

The leaders of the 9/11 Commission said earlier this week that our Nation is still not as safe or prepared as it can be because we have failed to fulfill their ``most elementary'' recommendations. 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean

added that ``If everybody in Congress is for recommendations, what happened? How come they're not passed?''

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have already offered to fulfill the Commission's recommendations through these measures listed in my letter. Now is the time for action.

That said, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Republican leadership may push through a number of security measures in the House in the next 2 weeks to address certain vulnerabilities in an attempt to show that this body cares about security. While I am happy that we are finally seeing some action on some critical homeland security issues, I am concerned that what will come before this body are shell bills that claim to secure our Nation without allocating the funding, manpower or technology necessary.

Indeed, debate is ongoing right now to include FEMA reorganization in the Homeland Security appropriations bill, and my colleagues across the aisle have said that they won't provide funding for improving interoperability of first responder communication systems. Certainly we all remember the failures of 9/11, when many first responders lost their lives because communications didn't work. Yet my colleagues across the aisle are refusing to include interoperability funding in the proposed FEMA reorganization, because the White House doesn't want it.

``Security on the cheap'' is no way to legislate our Nation's future. Americans are tired of Congress giving itself accolades while the Nation's business goes unfinished. America wants Congress to keep its promises and give all our citizens a country as secure as it needs to be.

Despite my Republican colleagues saying we Democrats don't have a clue about how to make our country safer, here it is: Join us and pass these 21 measures that provide real security to our Nation. Let's finally listen to the true bipartisan experts on this issue, the 9/11 Commission, and move forward with legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I am proud at this time to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for a response.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Los Angeles (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and for him to be the manager.