Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I came to have a little chat with the Members about immigration, and I intend to do that. But I cannot help but point out from the previous speaker that torture means many things. Perhaps the people who can best define torture would be prisoners of war in Vietnam, in Korea, and World War II. And I can say to the mothers of America that the people that we are accusing of torturing are people who want to kill their children as fast as they can. I would say to the fathers of America that the soldiers we are accusing of torturing are people that would like to kill their family as fast as they can. And I can assure the Members, having been in Vietnam, that pouring water on somebody, playing loud music, and lowering the air conditioner is not torturing anybody. It, though, however, may save an American GI.

Mr. Speaker, like most of the Members of the body, on October 24, 2001, I voted for the U.S. PATRIOT Act, which passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 357 to 66.

At the time many of us had concerns about whether or not the bill crossed the line on infringing on our constitutional liberties. We were assured that it did not. And when the new protections against terrorism were in place, we could actually see for ourselves that it did not.

So we approved that bill, based on the fact that our Nation had just suffered 3,000 dead in New York and Washington at the hands of illegal immigrant terrorists.

Since then we have put up with library and bookstore records examined by Federal agents. We have endured having our personal e-mail scanned by intelligence agents. We have seen our grandmothers forced to take off their shoes at airports, with no probable cause other than they have chosen to travel. All of these things are aggravating. We have been willing to put up with it as patriots if it means we can better defend ourselves against another 9/11.

But we have also seen nearly 200,000 American troops sent to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where over 1,800 of them have given their lives.

All the while we have seen the administration and the Congress turn a blind eye to the continuing hordes of millions of illegal immigrants pouring across our northern and southern borders. There is no amount of eavesdropping, searches, or overseas military actions that will protect us against another 9/11 while we leave our borders wide open to terrorists with suitcase nuclear weapons or biological agents.

We can secure our borders within months. We can secure our borders within months with a simple executive order or an agreement between our border State Governors and the Secretary of Defense. Congressional investigators say somewhere between 36,000 and 48,000 troops would do the job. The Secretary of Border Control and Immigration says maybe it will take 50,000. Since we are in agreement on needing somewhere between 36,000 and 50,000, there is no reason not to start deploying these forces soon.

And that is just the first step. We then need to build up our border patrol to a level at which we do not need help and we can send our troops back home.

We ought to be able to do that over the next 5 years, as an adequate number of new border patrol agents are trained and placed on duty and we get new fencing, lighting, sensors, and other improvements in place.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see us get to a point where we do not need the PATRIOT Act. We can let it quietly expire as we did with other internal security measures enacted during previous wars. But I would like for the Speaker and this Congress not to ask me to vote for any new so-called ``guest worker'' program while this outrage at our borders continues. The Members can count on me for a ``no'' vote right now.

When our borders are secure and we have absolutely stopped the invasion of our Nation by illegal immigrants, then and only then can we sit down and discuss how to solve this problem.

This week the Minutemen volunteers are heading back out into the Southwest desert to do the job the Federal Government is supposed to do. I do not want them to have to do that. As a matter of fact, they do not want to have to be doing that. But until Congress starts enforcing the immigration laws of this country, they will continue in growing numbers.

Mr. Speaker, protecting Americans against terrorists begins with illegal immigrants at our borders, not with our own citizens here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times on this floor concerning the need to secure our borders. We must do so if we are going to have any kind of responsible immigration policy and retain our national sovereignty. We know with somewhere between 36,000 and 50,000 additional enforcement personnel on our southern borders, we can catch virtually all of the potential terrorists and drug dealers trying to enter this country illegally.

But we now find that other-than-Mexican illegals, or OTMs as they are referred to by our Border Patrol, have discovered a large loophole in our law. Under this loophole, OTMs can cross our border illegally and be apprehended by our border patrol. The border patrol is then forced to give them paperwork allowing them to bypass all other immigration checkpoints and virtually release them into our country.

This criminal scheme is not the fault of some quirk in U.S. law. It is being forced on our border patrol by international law which we are allowing to undermine our rule of law, national immigration policy, our Constitution, and our sovereignty. International law says illegal immigrants must either be deported to their country of origin or placed in detention. If there is no room in detention, they must be released on bail with a promise that they return later for trial.

There is never any room in detention any more for the millions of illegals violating our southern border every year. And since these illegals are not Mexican, our border patrol is required to buy them airfare back to Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, China, Iraq, and on and on. So they sign an agreement to show in court in 30 days and are released.

With that paper in hand, they can pass legally through all other border patrol checkpoints and vanish into cities in America. We have caught 90,000 OTMs since October 1, 2004, and 98 percent have failed to show back up in court. Once hidden in large immigration communities inside our country with new false identification, it becomes virtually impossible to apprehend them.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood here before and called for deploying 36,000 troops to our border to effectively close it. But with this situation in place, we could send 1 million troops to our borders, and it would not make any difference. Border patrol says these people swim across the Rio Grande and come looking for our officers with a demand ``permiso,'' for the warrant that gives them a free pass into our Nation illegally.

Mr. Speaker, we need a new law right now. Anyone who crosses our border with Mexico illegally should be considered a citizen of Mexico for enforcement purposes. They should be returned there or incarcerated here immediately. This is not the United Nations or WTO. We represent the people of our districts. We are responsible to the people of the United States and are sworn to defend our Constitution. We have an inherent God-given right to national sovereignty, and this House must not stand by while foreign nations undermine our laws and our independence.

Mr. Speaker, I will be back next week to further this conversation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, this month a bill to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants was introduced in the United States Senate.

I think we should send a very clear message to the other body not to waste their time or ours on any bill dealing with the status of illegal immigrants until we first secure our borders.

What good does it do to try to address the problems of 11 to 16 million people who are here illegally if we do not address the gaping wound that allowed them in this country to start with?

The majority of illegals simply walk across our woefully undermanned 2,000-mile border with Mexico. We could deport them back to their country of origin, and millions would be pouring back across that same border within hours. We could turn our backs on justice and the rule of law and declare everyone here as now to be legal. Within hours we would have millions more illegal immigrants walking across that same border, encouraged by the fact that they could laugh at our laws with impunity.

Either extreme, or anything in between, is pointless while we let our border continue to bleed. Trying to defend 1,951 miles of border against 4 million illegal immigrants a year with just 10,817 border patrol officers is a mathematical impossibility.

This month Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner told the House Committee on Government Reform that we could secure the border, that we could secure the border, with an additional 50,000 auxiliary officers. That figure is in very close agreement with the draft field research by the Immigration Reform Caucus that was reported this week by the Washington Times, CNN's Lou Dobbs, and Fox News, which estimates 36,000 auxiliaries may accomplish the same purpose.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Governor Rick Perry of Texas can order their National Guard, with support from other States through the National Guard Bureau, to secure their section of their border today. We have already authorized the Secretary of Defense to pay the cost of that deployment in last year's Defense Authorization Act. In addition, we are bringing home 70,000 Federal troops from around the world, where they have been guarding other nations' borders for the past 60 years. A simple executive order from the President would allow them to relieve our National Guard and have 20,000 men and women to spare.

All it takes, Mr. Speaker, is will. We have the manpower and we have the money.

Mr. Speaker, on May 5 the American people responded to a Zogby nationwide poll on this issue. They approve using Federal troops to secure our border by a 53 to 40 percent margin. They approve using State and local law agencies to help secure our border by an 81 to 14 percent margin. They oppose an amnesty plan like that proposed in the Senate by a 56 to 35 percent margin.

This week, after the border patrol draft reported by caucus investigators was released, CNN online polls were running 92 percent in favor of using our military to control our borders. In response, the Mexican Government this week spoke out against us securing our border with our troops.

The American public demands we do so.

Now is the time for every Member of this body to choose whose side we are on.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I actually did not know who to come to talk to because we did not know who would be leading against this amendment.

If I may, it is a very, very simple drafting error in the bill on line 7 where we are saying that law enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of a State are fully authorized to apprehend and detain. Then it goes on to say ``or remove.'' ``Or remove'' should not have been in there.

And so we are just asking unanimous consent at this point to take that out and it will help the bill, and we are going to get it out somewhere anyway.

Madam Chairman, the Norwood amendment would definitely clarify the existing authority, existing authority of State and local law enforcement personnel in assisting in the apprehension, detention, and transport of illegal aliens in the routine course of their daily duties. This last phrase, ``in the routine course of duty,'' is critical because the language ensures that law enforcement has certainty when they come in contact with illegal aliens that are breaking our laws.

My amendment also would require DHS to establish a training manual and pocket guide for law enforcement and set forth simple guidelines for making training available.

Madam Chairman, I need to make this perfectly clear. This authority for State and local law enforcement already exists, though there is some confusion. But law enforcement officers and agencies need some assurance from us that they can take appropriate action with authority when the laws are broken. Any confusion about what to do when law enforcement meets with lawbreakers needs to end.

Some will argue law enforcement does not have adequate resources. That is clearly just not the case. We passed yesterday over $4.5 billion for homeland security, including $690 million for custody management, funds to dramatically increase detention bed space, $88 million for the Institutional Removal Program, there is $211 million for transportation and removal of undocumented aliens, and a good amendment today authorizes another $40 million to help willing States and local law enforcement. There is also $6 billion in the pipeline for first responders, and many of them are from law enforcement.

Imagine if a State or local law enforcement did not enforce Federal drug laws, or if a highway patrolman was confused about the speed limits on Federal interstates. Would Congress allow States and local law enforcement to not enforce Federal laws on bank robbers or kidnappings or fraud? In the wake of the 9/11 terror, porous borders are a major security concern.

Madam Chairman, I sponsored a bill with nearly identical language last Congress, so this is not just thought up today. It was endorsed by the National Sheriffs Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, and the 9/ 11 Families For a Secure America.

In addition, endorsements came from chiefs of police in Illinois, Iowa, Georgia, Indiana; and sheriffs from a slew of States endorsed similar language previously, including California, Michigan, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Washington, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and in nearly a dozen more.

Colleagues, the only area of law that State and local law enforcement are not enforcing because they are unsure about what can be done is the immigration law. That should change. It must change. And this is the right time and the right bill to correct this critical matter.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds and would point out there is no intention in this bill for local law enforcement to be able to deport anybody. In fact, if you had not objected to our amendment, that would have been clarified easily in this bill. And at the end of the day, that is simply not going to be the case.

Also, this bill is asking for training to help local law enforcement. I would simply say to my colleague that if he thinks local law enforcement ought not to help with this law because they do not know what they are doing, then maybe we ought to ask them not to help with any drug enforcement law because they do not know what they are doing. We are in that every day helping them.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to remind the gentleman that if there are chiefs of police or State patrols in any particular State that do not want to be bothered by helping their Nation rid itself of terrorists, this is all voluntary. The gentleman can write them back and say we have passed a law, but you do not have to be involved.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

In response to the last speaker, number one, had the gentlewoman been here earlier, the gentlewoman would have heard about why this is not an unfunded mandate.

Number two, if the gentlewoman believes local law enforcement should not help the Federal Government find terrorists in this Nation, which people who cross our borders illegally they are amongst, I ask the gentlewoman to drop a bill so that local law enforcement does not help the Federal Government in bank robberies and murders and drug enforcement and everything else that local law enforcement helps the Federal Government do.

It is ridiculous to say that the 750,000 local law enforcement people should not be involved in this Nation trying to find some of the people who, for example, committed terror in this country on 9/11.

Yesterday we passed over $4.5 billion for homeland security, including $690 million for custody management, funds to dramatically increase detention bed space, $88 million for an institutional removal program, $211 million for transportation and removal of undocumented aliens, and an earlier amendment today authorized another $40 million to help willing State and local law enforcement. There is also $6 billion in the pipeline for first responders. Many of them are local law enforcement. And this is voluntary. If the City of Houston does not want to play, they do not have to. But the rest of us need our law enforcement people to help us get these terrorists out of this country, and there are somewhere between 10 and 15 million that have come across our borders because we have failed to do anything about it for nonsensical reasons. It is time for this to come to an end.

If Members are for correcting immigration in this country, vote for this. If Members are against immigration corrections and do not think it needs reform and want an open border, vote against it.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, and say just because you say something is so does not mean it is so. This is a voluntary bill in which nobody is massing anywhere, nor does it imply that anywhere in this bill. It is totally voluntary, and local law enforcement are asked to work in line of duty.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to close the debate for this side.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I simply ask the gentleman to reconsider our unanimous consent to remove two words that would, I think, make an amendment that is going to pass better in your mind.

Madam Chairman, I just want to point out to the ranking member that I started this debate off saying there was a drafting error and we wanted to remove two words: ``or remove.'' Your side would not allow that to be removed. That would have solved the problem. We are going to get it solved even if it is in conference. We are going to get it done despite you, but we gave you the opportunity to do something about it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), my friend, for the time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I are offering today is about allowing States and localities some flexibility with their Federal homeland security funds. This flexibility is vital, especially when States and localities are doing the job of the Federal Government. Essentially, we believe that when States and localities are performing Federal homeland security functions, they should be able to tap into Federal homeland security dollars.

First, let me say and make very clear that the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and his committee had a tough assignment, and I very much like what they have done and respect the product that they have produced. I strongly support getting this first-responder money out of the currently clogged pipeline, and that is basically what we are trying to do here today, and my congratulations to the chairman for doing just that.

I have a major homeland security concern that I really do not think is getting nearly enough attention or funding. Additional resources are needed to help law enforcement deal with the problem of illegal aliens, a Federal issue and responsibility closely related to our security and anti-terrorism concerns. I believe our amendment would help these States and localities deal with this problem.

Last Congress, I introduced the CLEAR Act which was designed to clarify State and local law enforcement involvement in combating illegal immigration. I need not remind the body that many of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally, that many of the World Trade Center bombers were here illegally, and many of the plotters for other terrorist acts are here illegally. Immigration and border issues are central to our homeland security and anti-terrorism efforts.

In promoting that bill, two problems were identified for law enforcement, the lack of resources and the lack of authority to do what needs to be done. While this bill does not deal with the authority part of the problem, it does deal with the resources part of the solution. Therefore, our law enforcement folks and others who are increasingly taking on anti-terror and homeland security operations should be able to access Federal funds for performing these Federal roles.

The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I have different districts, with different needs, but we agree that this language provides some flexibility to get at our individual concerns. Of course, the Department of Homeland Security has a role in oversight under the amendment so there are some checks and balances, appropriately. We are intentionally not talking about an unfettered ability to send the Feds a bill for services rendered. Neither of us have interest in that.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, and I do thank the committee for working with us on this language, and I want to continue to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) in addressing this critical problem.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that today we heard some very important testimony on workplace safety during a hearing we had in the Subcommittee on Workplace Protections. We wanted to hear from safety advocates in the small business community on how well voluntary employer compliance programs are working to improve workplace safety while at the same time protecting jobs and small businesses from unnecessary red tape and lawsuits.

I have heard employers say many times, and know from my own firsthand knowledge, that OSHA regulations are simply too complex and too difficult to understand. It is a red-tape nightmare, Mr. Speaker. That is a good description for the piles of OSHA rules, regulations, guidance documents, and interpretive letters that employers must dig through to try to determine the right thing to do in the business place to come into compliance. Mr. Speaker, I do not think they ought to be spending their time bringing their workplace into compliance with OSHA red tape. They ought to, instead, be spending their time making their workplace safer.

Small businesses want to comply with our Nation's health and safety laws for many reasons, one of which is it simply pays for them to do so. From the testimony we heard today, it is evident that OSHA's past ``gotcha'' enforcement scheme of fines and lawsuits is actually leading to a less safe workplace, as small business owners are forced to hunker down to protect themselves instead of seeking out help to improving their workplace safety.

Fortunately, OSHA has already recognized the need for compliance assistance, and Secretary Chao is to be commended for her vision and leadership in this regard. Now we are actually starting to see the results of her efforts over the last 5 years, and those results are positive and encouraging.

The Government Accountability Office, fondly known as GAO, has found that the companies involved in voluntary OSHA compliance programs have contributed to the safest workforce in our Nation's modern history. GAO asked for more data from Congress on how well these programs are working, and we need to provide that just as soon as possible.

But one overall fact we already know is that encouraging OSHA to help businesses instead of prosecuting them is having far better results in creating safer workplaces, and this is especially true with small businesses. We can continue this process with some powerful force multipliers with OSHA, through voluntary employer efforts to work

with private consultants and industrial safety specialists to foster a safer workplace.

OSHA will never have the resources to visit every American work site to ensure compliance, but this exciting new compliance tool can ensure that workplaces that would never see a visit from an OSHA inspector will have access to world-class safety specialists. At the same time, our business owners should be encouraged to invite OSHA to their work site and engage the agency in compliance assistance without fear of reprisal from Federal bureaucrats. In the process, we can continue to maintain the safest workplace in the world where our businesses can continue to compete in a global economy.

There are still the last holdouts from the failed ways of the past who would like to see Federal bureaucrats spread out across the country to harass and punish people who are trying to make a living. In order to do that, we would have to have 108,000 new inspectors at OSHA, and even then they could only visit our businesses every 2 years. That will never happen, and it is not going to work.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the verge of winning a great victory for workplace safety by expanding voluntary compliance programs. Let us resolve to defeat the naysayers. If we succeed, we can create a 21st- century OSHA that will be far more effective in creating a safe workplace for every American worker, no matter how small or remote their place of business. We can continue teaching Federal bureaucrats a lesson in manners when dealing with their fellow citizens, and, in fact, their employers.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to require the Department of Homeland Security within 6 months to get information on a number of types of criminal illegal aliens into the National Crime Information Center. This makes sense for law enforcement, it makes sense if you are going to go after the gang problem, and it even makes sense to address our illegal immigration problem.

The NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information available to the Federal, State, local law enforcement, and other criminal justice agencies. It is operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This information helps apprehend fugitives, locates missing persons or property, and protects law enforcement officers. All records in NCIC are protected from unauthorized access.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, there should be no fear in using this database to get this vital information into the hands of law enforcement. It is a good system. It is a tested one.

Under my amendment, information on three types of aliens would be included in the National Crime Information Center: first, those aliens with a final order of removal issued against them. These are absconders who are flagrantly violating our laws.

Recent estimates, remember that word ``estimates,'' recent estimates say that there are over 400,000 in our country today. Of this number, approximately 85,000 are criminal aliens. I do not mean jaywalkers either. I mean murderers, rapists, and pedophiles.

Second, there are those who signed a volunteer deportation order.

The third group, a very important group, are those who have overstayed their visas.

Essentially, we are dealing with those who our government says should not be here, those who have themselves said they should not be here, and those who are overstaying their permission to be here.

This first category, visa overstays, is the difference between the language in my amendment and that of the previous one offered by my good friend,

the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who incorporated much of my language into his good amendment; and I applaud him for that.

Lest my colleagues forget, this final category, those who overstay their visas, has given us some of the most heinous criminals recently. The chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta, overstayed his visa, along with a number of other hijackers.

Sheik Omar Rahman, the spiritual leader of the World Trade Center bombers and the plot to attack New York City landmarks, overstayed his visa, among other immigration violations.

Mahmud Abouhalima entered on a tourist visa in 1985, which expired in the spring of 1986. He was given permanent residence in 1988 as part of an amnesty for agriculture workers. There was no evidence, however, that he was ever an agriculture worker. He made several trips to Afghanistan where he received combat training. He was implicated as a lead organizer in the 1993 plots to bomb New York landmarks.

Mohammed Salameh entered on a 6-month tourist visa issued in Jordan in 1988. He should never have qualified for the visa by law as he fit the profile of intending immigrant. He rented the truck in the 1993 WTO bombing.

Eyad Ismoil entered on a student visa in 1989, left school after three semesters, violating the terms of his visa, and became an illegal alien. He later drove the World Trade Center van full of explosives.

More facts about visa overstays that might startle folks a little bit: at least 40 percent of the noncitizens who stay in the United States illegally, and perhaps more than half, did not sneak across the border. Visa overstays were described as a ``disturbing and persistent problem'' in a report by the Justice Department's Inspector General.

Now, here is the punch line. This was all written on November 8, 1998, in the Dallas Morning News, nearly 3 years before the attacks of 9/11, and approximately 6\1/2\ years ago. This visa overstay language is therefore key to this amendment and key to our safety and security.

This amendment is necessary. This language regarding visa overstays makes us safer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very kind.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you the NCIC system works. After 6\1/2\ years, it is overdue time we tried to do something about the visas.

I will take just a minute to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for a great bill. I appreciate so much his support in this, as well as the support of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and all their good work. We are finally, finally trying to do something about this terrible problem of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I point to the previous amendment where we talked about estimates a little bit. Well, this is dealing with estimates. This amendment would simply require a study conducted jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice on the link between illegal aliens and gang membership. Surprisingly, despite the overwhelming agreement from all parties that the two are linked, there is no comprehensive report anywhere that we can find on this topic. It is time for that to change.

Congressional testimony on April 13 of this year produced some important anecdotal evidence of the need of this sort of data. Before the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Marsha Garst offered some statistics in relation to some problems in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. She indicated the gangs there are nearly 75 percent composed of illegal aliens. She also related that a number of the illegal alien gang members had been previously deported, proving that we are not doing our job on the borders.

A second witness at the same hearing was Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute. She has research that is helpful to this subject, but somewhat out of date. She indicated that a confidential California Department of Justice study from 1995 said that 60 percent of the 20,000-member 18th Street Gang in Southern California are illegal. Also, that the leadership of the Colombian Lil' Cycos Gang, who control some markets in L.A., was about 60 percent illegal in 2002. ICE officials put the number of illegals among MS-13 members at simply ``a majority.''

We need to do better than just know ``a majority.'' If you are not convinced, just listen to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), who is the Subcommittee on Immigration chairman. He indicated in his statement: ``While there are an estimated 750,000 to 800,000 gang members in the Nation, there are no firm estimates on how many of these gang members are aliens and how many are citizens.'' His point should not go unaddressed.

So we again are saying today that our porous borders are a problem for our citizens. This time it is crime, sometimes deadly in our neighborhoods and streets. Despite this very clear link between gangs and illegal aliens, there is not a study that I located anywhere that addresses this issue.

I think that it is long past due for that to change.

People say that addicts have to first admit that they have a problem before they can move on and get help. This study is a good way for us to finally

admit that we have a major problem and seek ways then to correct the problem. I hope that we will not take too long to seek that help, and I would be happy to assist with a solution, because it is an issue that I have worked on and been very interested in for a long time.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and help us finally get the facts about the nationwide scope of what we are dealing with in terms of illegal aliens and gang membership.

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

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I will simply say to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that this is not an amendment that justifies or does not justify the previous amendment. This is an effort to get the facts on what we already know. If you ride around at all, you do not have to go very far to determine what the problem is in this country.

I ask all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to help protect this country from illegal immigrants.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank the gentlewoman. I hope this will be, and I think it should have bipartisan support, and I am going to call for a vote, because I believe most of us will vote for this.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I am interested in doing anything I know we can do to stop gang violence in this country. It is time we brought it to an end, and of course, I am interested in anything about that that might head that off.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate are finally taking the first small step in decades to address the hordes of criminal illegal immigrants who are undermining our Nation's laws, our culture, and our economy.

We have agreed to pass the REAL ID Act as part of emergency supplemental appropriations. REAL ID holds the promise of attacking, finally, the underground fake ID industry in this country. This important legislation asks States to implement tough new standards for issuing driver's licenses, that is, if they want their State driver's licenses to be accepted as legitimate identification for Federal purposes. This bill does not force States to do so, nor does this bill implement a new national ID.

The opponents of immigration reform, those who really want opened borders, are now screaming that this bill is ``too expensive'' and will ``backlog'' the driver's license application process of legal Americans.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported yesterday the concerns of one bureaucrat at the National Conference of State Legislators. He complained that the REAL ID would cost States $500 million to implement. But my home State of Georgia, like many others, already require many of the standards in this bill. So this figure is very questionable, extremely questionable. But for the sake of argument, let us accept that figure as valid.

Would it be worth $500 million to have avoided 9/11? The 19 attackers who killed 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington on that day had 63 driver's licenses between them, which they used, as we all know, to board the airliners they crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. $500 million would be the deal of the century to have avoided the loss of all these Americans.

Beyond our battle against terror, this bill addresses a growing threat to our very culture, to our way of life, and the reasons that people all over the world want to come here to start with. We are a Nation that respects the law, abhors corruption and graft. And as a result, we have built the greatest economy on Earth by having established a firm foundation of public honesty; reliable documents; trustworthy personal, business, and official records. Those standards are in stark contrast to most of the Third World, where graft and cronyism and corruption are the norm. That is why people from those countries want out, because they cannot feed themselves under the economic conditions created by this corruption.

But illegal immigrants begin their journey by bringing that corruption to this country, by intentionally violating our immigration laws and crossing our borders illegally, and with the help of their own corrupt government. Once here, they continue the process by falsifying identification documents, which they then use to corrupt our public records at both the State and Federal level.

In the process, they have created an underground criminal industry based on graft and deceit, with the sole purpose of undermining the public records of this Nation.

To allow this to continue would be far more damaging than just allowing false information. It would allow a culture of corruption to take seed and grow in this country, until the weeds of graft choke the economy and the public integrity of America, as it has the nations that the illegal immigrants flee from, especially south of us.

I urge the Senate, I urge the Senate to join us in passing this essential first effort against illegal immigration.

Madam Speaker, this month the Minuteman Project has accomplished with just a few hundred citizen volunteers what the Federal Government has been unable to do and actually told us was impossible to do, and that is stopping illegal immigrants crossing our borders.

In the process of focusing the Nation's attention on the insecurity of our borders, they have succeeded in bringing new information to the debate on the overall immigration crisis in this Nation. The new information is critical to this body's consideration of a specific policy area, probably and frankly the one area in which all Americans should be in 100 percent agreement, and that is protecting Americans from criminal illegal immigrants.

U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Michael Nicely is head of the entire 260 mile long Tucson Sector of our border, the worst in the Nation for illegal immigration, and the same sector where the Minutemen shutdown a 23 mile portion of that sector.

What should be horrifying to all Americans is what Chief Nicely told Government Executive Magazine just last week. He says that since November, the Border Patrol agents have caught 17,000 criminal illegal aliens trying to enter our country through just through this one 260 mile sector; 17,000 criminal illegal aliens. That is not total illegal aliens now, just the criminals. Overall, Chief Nicely's sector has arrested more than a quarter of a million people trying to enter this country illegally just since Thanksgiving.

Last year, I introduced legislation specifically targeting against criminal illegal aliens. The Clear Law Enforcement For Criminal Aliens Removal

Act, or we call it the CLEAR Act, gained the support of some 125 Members. Our purpose is fairly simple: State and local law enforcement personnel would be fully authorized to investigate, apprehend, and, if necessary, remove criminal aliens in the United States.

Already this year our Justice Department has asked for help from local law enforcement on this issue. According to Reuters News, the Bush administration now recognizes that, ``The United States has freed numerous illegal aliens into the community who are dangerous murderers, rapists and child molesters under a legal loophole created by Supreme Court decisions, and that ``Congress should urgently pass legislation to close this loophole, which has already resulted in the release of several extremely violent offenders, with others scheduled to be released soon.''

According to the report, U.S. Justice Department Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Cohn made this request of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on March 14.

We have the legislative draft to do just what they want, this year's pending version of the CLEAR Act. We plan to introduce the 2005 version within the next few weeks. We do welcome constructive input from the administration, from Members of both parties and members of both houses. But from what we have learned thus far from the Minuteman Project, the CLEAR Act cannot be a stand-alone remedy for stopping the hordes of vicious foreign criminals invading our country to murder, rape and molest Americans.

My one bill will not do it, not by itself. We can provide local and State law enforcement with the tools to remove these criminal elements through guaranteed deportation. We can help Homeland Security do their job. But it does little if they can simply pour back across unsecured borders. You have gotten nothing done.

The CLEAR Act, therefore, will become a critical component of overall immigration and border reform. I urge every Member in this body to join in this effort with the CLEAR Act. In return, I pledge to support whatever legislative measures that are necessary to secure our borders. That includes a total military closing, if necessary, to stop these criminals. I fully understand the meaning of ``closing,'' even if it is a temporary closing. It is a time we in this body are going to be able to declare whose side are we on.

Are we on the side of fellow Americans, or are we on the side of those of the new world order who want no borders? It is that simple. The vote will come down to just that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I have a little different view of this.

This is a good bill. It is a bill this country needs. We need a national energy policy, there is no question about it, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) on years of hard, dedicated work to bring this to the floor.

Having said that, like any other bill I have ever seen, it is not a perfect bill; it has its good and bad parts. And if I could, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I would like to have a little quick colloquy with the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Texas knows, the electricity title is very, very important to my consumers and my constituents in the southeast as well as in the northwest, and one of the provisions in the title that is not there is regarding participatory funding.

Since that is a fairly standard thought-out thing in regional transmission organizations, I am concerned that the bill does not have any language in there to assure me and my constituents that they are not going to have to pay extra. We do really want to help people that are having blackouts and brownouts, but we do not think we should pay the whole load.

What can I anticipate on participatory funding down the road?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much. As he knows, I agree participatory means ``everybody pays,'' and those that reap the advantages of this, which will be the generators of electricity and the receivers of electricity, need to pay. And I am all right with that.

I thank my colleague, and I look forward to working with him on this as we move forward toward conference.

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is little doubt that our law enforcement agencies should conduct themselves, in fulfilling their founding purpose, in a manner that is consistent with their mission of serving the American people. In this light, I am submitting for the record an article by Radley Balko, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, entitled ``Bush Should Feel Doctors' Pain''. The article suggests that the need to protect patients, while attempting to prevent diversion and misuse of prescription drugs is arguably out of balance.

There is no doubt that prescription drug abuse, particularly the abuse of prescription pain medications, is a serious public health problem. I have been one of the most vocal advocates on the necessity of this body to address the abuse of prescription medication by patients, crack down on the practice of ``doctor shopping'' and prosecute those medical professionals that harm responsible pain management by violating their responsibility to the highest standards of their profession.

Consequently, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) should absolutely take appropriate steps to stop criminals from diverting these medications and exploiting those who would abuse them. But, it must also recognize that over 30 million Americans suffer chronic pain and need access to proper pain management by legitimate medical practitioners if they are to lead normal and productive lives.

However, in its seemingly single-minded pursuit of ``bad doctors,'' the DEA appears to be showing its lack of proper understanding, inability, or unwillingness, to strike a proper balance between these two public policy goals. I am worried that this failure is scaring responsible doctors away from prescribing legitimate patients from obtaining needed medications, causing these patients and those who love and care for them untold harm and unnecessary distress.

Congressmen Whitfield, Pallone, Strickland, and I have introduced H.R. 1132, a bill that would assist and encourage the States to establish a controlled substance monitoring program. These Prescription Monitoring Programs would assist physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals by providing them with prescribing information that would help them to detect abuse and diversion tactics and prevent ``doctor shopping''. This legislation also would permit law enforcement to review this prescribing data, but only where they certify that the requested information is related to an individual investigation involving the unlawful diversion or misuse of schedule II, III, or IV substances, and that such information will further the purpose of their investigation.

It appeared that the DEA realized it should not, indeed could not, dictate proper medical practice in the prescribing of pain medications. Last August, after working with a panel of distinguished physicians specializing in pain management, the DEA published guidelines for physicians who treat pain with opioids. These guidelines were designed to assure legitimate medical practitioners that they would not face prosecution simply because they prescribed such medications or treated a large number of patients in pain. Given the disturbing trend of doctors shying away from prescribing necessary medication due in large part to the issues discussed, the DEA should not act in a way that would further limit patients' access to needed pain management medications.

Within weeks, the DEA abruptly withdrew these guidelines without explanation in a transparent attempt to avoid jeopardizing a pending high profile prosecution. Strong objections came from the medical community and from 30 state Attorneys General. I am also including a copy of their letter sent to the DEA in which they raise their objections.

However, the DEA has not relented in its pursuit of doctors it considers to be practicing bad medicine in a field of practice that is still evolving and requires a certain latitude for the exercise of sound medical judgment. In effect, the DEA is doing the very thing it should not do, determine what is acceptable medical practice.

The chilling effect the DEA's actions are having on physicians engaged in the legitimate practice of medicine is undeniable. Effective pain management has become all too difficult to obtain because many doctors are afraid to prescribe adequate levels of opioids for fear of investigation and prosecution. This is simply unacceptable, as a member of the healthcare community for over thirty years and a patient who has known the need for proper pain management.

Yes, the DEA should continue to work with the appropriate state and local authorities to pursue those who abuse the trust that was placed in them when they obtained a medical license. Yes, we should be cracking down on those patients who seek to circumvent and abuse the system to abuse prescription medications. But the DEA must lead the charge to restore the balance between these different but certainly not mutually exclusive public health goals. By assuring legitimate medical practitioners that they will not be investigated or prosecuted simply because they prescribe a certain kind of medication or have a successful practice, will better serve the American people, particularly those many millions who are needlessly suffering in pain.

National Association of

Attorneys General,

Washington, DC, January 19, 2005.

Karen P. Tandy,

Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Alexandria,

Mr. Speaker, in addition to my remarks today, I am also submitting a letter written by Dr. Scott Spear to the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In it, Dr. Spear, who is the President of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, brings to light an important health issue that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently debating: the safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants. The FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel has scheduled an upcoming hearing that will focus primarily on the safety of these products for the American consumer. The information that Dr. Spear shares in his letter is important for us to take note of as this panel continues its work to make an informed, science-based decision on the safety of these implants. In addition, I am submitting for the Record a pamphlet entitled Safety of Silicone Breast Implants that reviews the long term studies that have been performed on silicone gel-filled breast implants. Taken along with Dr. Spear's letter, this brochure makes a compelling argument that in determining the very real and unquestionably important issue of determining the safety of these implants, we must set preconceived notions aside, and ensure that science dictates our actions. I urge my colleagues to review these two documents and I encourage you to join me in supporting the unbiased and open-minded work of the FDA panel as it determines the safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants for American consumers.

March 4, 2005.

U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee,

U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, (Members and

Health Legislative Assistants).

Dear Senators: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is

conducting an ongoing regulatory process regarding breast

implants, which the American Society of Plastic Surgeons

(ASPS) fully supports. As physicians and patient advocates,

we support sound science and have confidence that the FDA

will review valid scientific data and make its decisions

based on the best interests of patients. Moreover, we believe

a strong post-market surveillance process will serve the best

interests of our patients.

As part of this process, the FDA's General and Plastic

Surgery Devices Panel will be conducting hearings on April

11-13 regarding the pre-market approval (PMA) applications of

two manufacturers' silicone gel-filled breast implants. The

FDA appointed panel represents areas of expertise and

judgment relevant to the product under review including

academicians in specific fields, such as from radiology,

oncology, biostatistics, ethics, plastic surgery, general

surgery and other disciplines. Each panelist is vigorously

screened and cleared by the FDA in advance of their

participation. Historically, panelists have been permitted to

engage in educational activities promoting patient care.

These activities have not been deemed conflicts of interest.

Anti-breast implant advocates continue to raise this issue to

discredit qualified and reputable clinicians.

As a matter of background, the FDA's General and Plastic

Surgery Devices Panel conducted a similar hearing in October

2003. The

hearings were conducted in a highly open and transparent

process, with more than 20 hours of public testimony and

signification deliberation. Ultimately, the 2003 Advisory

Panel recommended approval of the device with a number of

conditions. The conditions outlined by the panel include

development of a model informed consent form, patient

education, surgeon education, patient follow-up and exams,

annual reports to FDA, implant retrieval testing, a breast

implant registry, and recommendation for removal of ruptured

implants. In January 2004, the FDA decided to postpone action

pending submission of additional manufacturer data outlined

in a revised draft guidance to be addressed at this

subsequent panel hearing.

Given the level of interest in the FDA's review of silicone

breast implants, it is important that Members of Congress are

provided accurate and science-based information concerning

these medical devices.