Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

It has been my privilege during my lifetime to have three heroes living at the time that I was able to benefit from their example. They are my father, President Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde.

As the gentlelady knows, I served in the Congress for 10 years from 1979 to 1989, where I had the privilege of serving on the Judiciary Committee with Henry Hyde all those 10 years. I served on the subcommittee dealing with civil rights with him, and if it had not been for Henry Hyde we would not have had the extension of the Voting Rights Act of the early 1980s.

We had hearings all around the country. It may sound strange today, but at that time there was a question of whether or not that would be extended. It was Henry Hyde who going around the country on field hearings who finally made a statement that he had seen the parade of horribles. He had seen that there was still a need to have this extraordinary law extended. Had it not been for Henry Hyde, the Voting Rights Act would not have been extended. He has never gotten the credit for that.

Henry Hyde is a gentle man; a large man, but a gentle man; someone who can argue on the floor of the House vociferously, but when it is over, he goes over and punches you in the arm and tells you a joke; a man who has all the dignity you would look for in a statesman; a man who has the intellect which we can all admire; a man who, when former Governor Cuomo made a well covered speech at the University of Notre Dame talking about the responsibility of a Catholic man or a Catholic woman in politics, Henry Hyde had a slightly different take. So he then, a month later, spoke on the

campus of the University of Notre Dame and gave his version.

It was one of the most compelling speeches I have ever heard, telling that someone can be a man of faith and a man of the House, a man or woman of faith or a man or woman of the House.

He was so eloquent in the way he argued. There was in this House a stillness that came upon this floor when Henry Hyde would get up to speak. Democrat and Republican and independent alike would stand at attention or sit at attention when Henry Hyde came and spoke. It was a capstone of the argument to see Henry Hyde present himself.

I am pleased that at one time I was able to have Henry Hyde in my home community to speak to people on the very, very important issue of life. He always did it with a forthrightness, with a concern for the sensitivity of the subject, but always, always so grounded in the principles.

One time I asked Henry about whether he ever got tired of dealing with the life issue. He said, ``You know, sometimes I do. You get all this criticism, you get all of this attention that you don't want.'' And he said then, ``But as you get older, you think of that day in the future where, if hopefully you get to heaven, all those unborn children are there to greet you to say thank you for what you have done.''

That is Henry Hyde. It is from the heart. It is from the head, because he has got a great intellect, but it is from the heart, because he truly believes it.

If there is one person that I admire most in this House, if there is one person who is the embodiment of all that is good in this House, if there is one person that compelled me to return to the Congress, it is Henry Hyde; a friend, a statesman, a leader, a man of courage, someone who has fought his whole life for what is good and right about America, and someone I am happy to call a friend; but, more than that, someone I am happy to call a leader in this House, who has stood for everything great about this country.

This is a man who has dedicated himself to this country; a man who dedicated himself to his family; a man who dedicated himself to the principles that we all espouse. But he lived those principles as much as anybody I have ever met. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day weekend offers many Americans the opportunity to spend much needed time with friends and family, as well as a break from the routine and hustle and bustle of everyday life. This weekend, as we gather for cookouts, take advantage of holiday sales and welcome the arrival of summer, we should refocus our attention and recognize the day's true purpose. This is a national day of thanks, remembrance, and tribute.

Thanks for the gift of safety offered by our Nation's veterans. Remembrance for those who have fought and died for our freedom. And tribute to the men and women whose service in our armed forces has secured America's future.

Set aside as a yearly reminder to be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have accepted our security as their duty, Memorial Day is a unique celebration of both life and death. Recognized by all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity, Memorial Day is a national holiday dedicated to celebrating the lives of our fallen soldiers by honoring their memory.

Throughout our history, we have met and overcome each threat to our sovereignty and way of life with dignity. While our forces overseas and at home are engaged in a Global War on Terror, this Memorial Day is all made the more poignant by the nature of our enemy. Islamo-fascists committed to the destruction of our Nation and our way of life should clearly remind all Americans that it is our solemn duty to honor the brave men and women in uniform who are fighting to secure the future of American generations. Through their sacrifice, Americans yet unborn will know greater peace, prosperity, and hope.

Giving what President Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion, the sacrifice of America's armed forces has secured more than two centuries of liberty. Today, we honor those who have given their lives so our freedom could endure. Our commitment to the men and women of our Armed Forces should reflect their dedication to us all.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 536.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 536, page 62, lines 1 through 17. This provision violates House rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislation in a general appropriations bill.

Section 536 requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue security requirements for chemical facilities that the Department deems highest risk within 6 months of enactment of the bill. This constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and is therefore in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.

The Committee on Homeland Security is actively engaged in developing comprehensive legislation to address the issue of chemical site security, and section 536 would undermine the committee's efforts to provide commonsense risk-based solutions to the problem.

Madam Speaker, in assessing the effectiveness of immigration policy, it is helpful to look at both the push factors and the pull factors which contribute to the phenomenon of illegal immigration.

In assessing the push factors, we must not overlook the role of the government of Mexico. On a human level, it is a sad fact that people are motivated to make what is often a dangerous trek north to the United States because of the absence of economic opportunity in Mexico itself. Yet this flow of illegal immigration into the United States acts as a pressure relief valve by allowing the Mexican government to escape political accountability to those it has failed.

Ironically, the Mexican government's laissez fare attitude towards immigration out of Mexico is not reflected in its policy concerning its own southern border. When you hear the President of Mexico or other Mexican politicians rail against the House-passed border control bill, please keep in mind that when it comes to their own border policies, all of the rhetoric concerning the right to migration is suddenly nowhere to be found. In the end, the Mexican government's policy will prove to be shortsighted and will ultimately cause serious damage to their own country. Imagine the long-term effects of a nation losing millions of its hardest working younger people. The future of Mexico is sending its government a clear and unmistakable message of adios as they vote with their feet.

Furthermore, when one factors Mexico's demographic future into the equation, a dire picture emerges. According to an article by Philip Longman in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, ``Mexican fertility rates have dropped so dramatically, the country is now aging five times faster than is the United States. It took 50 years for the American median age to rise just five years, from 30 to 35. By contrast, between 2000 and 2050, Mexico's median age, according to U.N. projections, will increase by 20 years, leaving half the population over 42. Meanwhile, the median American age in the year 2050 is expected to be 39.7.'' Thus, ultimately illegal immigration from Mexico into the U.S. is not good for either Mexico or the United States.

According to the Associated Press, President Fox has characterized the House immigration bill as, quote, stupid. To his credit, the same AP story quoted President Fox as acknowledging that his government must ``generate opportunities here in Mexico.'' However, it is the responsibility of the United States Government to control our own borders and to take action to reduce the pull factors which draw people to the United States. We must demagnetize the attraction of illegal employment in the U.S. Unfortunately, our track record here reflects a failure of government policy on our side of the border.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, IRCA, or Simpson- Mazzoli, for the first time imposed sanctions on employers for the hiring of those ineligible to work in the United States. Yet since the passage of that bill, administrations of both political parties have failed to enforce the law. The fact that there were only three cases last year, three, of a notice to file a prosecution for the unlawful hiring of illegal aliens is utterly indefensible. There must be a will to enforce the law.

I wish to recount what in retrospect was the death knell to an effective regime of employer sanctions. An amendment to Simpson-Mazzoli was accepted which completely undermined the employment verification system. In its place, a series of documents required to be submitted with the I-9 employment eligibility verification form was substituted. The end result was the creation of a new cottage industry for the production of false documentation. I would like to emphasize once again that it was the negation of an effective employer verification system, which in combination with the lack of enforcement, undermined the usefulness of employer sanctions as an immigration enforcement tool.

It was for this reason that the basic pilot project was created in 1996 by this Congress. The system allows employers to voluntarily check the names and Social Security numbers of its employees

against the records maintained by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Building on this project, H.R. 4437, the House-passed bill, would create a nationwide mandatory program. Unlike the watered-down language in the 1986 bill, the employment verification provisions in the House-passed bill offers a genuine prospect for effective employer sanctions necessary to demagnetize the attraction of unlawful employment in the U.S.

An effective employer sanctions regime, coupled with the need to fully fund the additional 2,000 Border Patrol positions authorized this year and in the out years, is essential if we are going to control illegal immigration. At the same time if we are to maximize the cooperation of employers with the implementation of an effective system of employer sanctions, it is necessary to ensure that in those cases where U.S. workers are unavailable, employers have the option of employing temporary foreign workers. Let me suggest that regulating the stream of workers which have crossed back and forth our southern border since the 1870s will facilitate the job of a larger Border Patrol and the implementation of an effective system of employer sanctions.

By definition however, in a temporary worker program, the workers should be temporary. Along the lines of an amendment I offered unsuccessfully in 1986, workers could work in the United States for up to 10 months of the year. During that time a portion of their wages could be withheld. The money would be placed in an escrow account and would only be returned to the workers upon their return to their home country--in most cases--Mexico. The proposal has a built in incentive for the temporary workers to return home to work their own small farms and to reunite with their families. In fact, Mexico and Canada have entered into a temporary agricultural worker program along these lines, which by all accounts has operated quite successfully.

Finally, we cannot avoid the issue of what we will do with those who have entered our country illegally and have settled in our communities. I certainly do not favor an amnesty. But the use of the word ``amnesty'' does not excuse anyone on this side of the argument from explaining exactly what they propose to do with as many as 11 million people.

By the same token, those who have violated our laws should not be allowed to cut in line in front of those who have obeyed them. A middle ground solution would allow those undocumented persons with sufficient equities in our society to remain. They could continue to work and travel back and forth between the United States and their home country. They would be legal residents, ``blue card'' holders if you will. However, they would not be afforded the legal equivalent of a diamond lane to citizenship. If they wish to become citizens, they would be required to return home, file an application and get in line like everyone else.

Such requirements are necessary to reassure Americans who have been turned off by the ideologically driven multicultural agenda of those groups promoting identification with the Mexican flag, an alternative national anthem, and celebration of May Day in solidarity with leftist Mexican trade unions. It is hard for me to conceive of anything which could do more damage to the case one might make on behalf of those who demand acceptance by us to be equal partners in our society. For the common element of all immigrants who have come to this land has been a deep and burning desire to become Americans. The welcome mat extended to previous generations of immigrants was predicated upon a commitment to a common patrimony. Nothing less should be expected of those who currently seek to become a part of the tapestry of a larger tradition and history of American immigration.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Madam Chairman, this day is the reason that I decided to come back to the Congress. An effort to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve one of the great challenges affecting America, that is what this place is all about. There are a lot of cynics and skeptics out there who say that the Congress of the United States is incapable of doing the work that it should do. This day is a refutation of that suggestion. Today is an indication that we can work together. And I want to thank Chairman King for the work that he has done and the broad flexibility that he granted to our subcommittee to put this bill together. I want to thank my ranking member, Loretta Sanchez, for the work she has done; the ranking member on the full committee, Mr. Thompson; and, of course, Jane Harman, my chief co-author on this bill.

This is the best of bills: legislation written to make a law, not to make a political statement. Yes, there are political statements that will be made about this bill, but the fact of the matter is we are moving forward in an effective way to solve a challenge that is out there that the American people recognize and that we recognize.

In response to 9/11, the natural response was for us to look at where we were attacked and to focus most of our attention and energy in that direction. That is why we have had, if you will, a heavy response in the area of aviation safety. But that does not mean we can ignore the other areas.

As I said on the floor yesterday, the greatness of our ports as an integral part of our international trade, the fact that we are leaders in the world in international trade, the fact that we benefit from it more than anybody else, but we do so because it is so different than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago.

The instantaneous communication. The ability to deliver products within a short period of time. The fact that inventory is carried on rail, on trucks, in ships, rather than sitting static in a warehouse somewhere. The world has changed and we have been the leaders in changing the world, and we should be pleased and proud of the tremendous contribution that our ports make to our economy and to our everyday living.

But the very things that make that possible make us vulnerable to those who would destroy everything we stand for. The terrorists do not want to see international trade. The terrorists do not want to see an exchange of ideas. The terrorists do not want to see cultures mixing together. The terrorists do not want to see America shown at its best. And that is what we do, as we Americans live every single day with the benefits of the trade. It is not the totality of what we do, but it is an essential part of what we do. And this bill responds to the attack that those would have on us through this very much shining star in our constellation of America. So I thank the Members for work on this.

I would say we are going to have a debate about 100 percent inspection, and I would say we all would hope for that day. But I would just direct people's attention to the National Journal of this last Friday on the inside page where they have something called the ``Reality Check'' and they refer to this effort to have 100 percent container inspection. They say, and this is the National Journal, that ``it is a nice idea but not very feasible with current technology. Eleven million containers are shipped to U.S. ports each year. Of those, U.S. Customs and border protection personnel physically screen only about 6 percent, 660,000. `It is a noble impulse, but as a practical matter, it can't be accomplished right now,' said Jack Riley, homeland security expert with RAND.''

The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better equipment that stands faster; and that requirement, that impulse, is in this bill as a result of an amendment adopted that was presented by the gentlewoman from Florida. We are attempting to make us safer. Let us rejoice in this day and let us support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I seek to obtain the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition because of some lack of clarity on this amendment, and perhaps I can be relieved of my concern.

The gentlewoman, in her comments, suggested that the World Shipping Council and the Pacific Maritime Association were in support of this amendment. And yet I have a letter with a contrary conclusion, not based on the fact that they object to the objective of the gentlewoman's amendment but rather some concern that the gentlewoman's amendment would be too restrictive in bringing us to the point of having the best technology available as soon as possible.

As I understand the gentlewoman's amendment, it changes the definition of Container Security Device from ``a mechanical or electronic device designed to, at a minimum, detect unauthorized intrusions of containers'' to, ``a mechanical or electronic device designed to, at a minimum, positively identify containers and detect and record unauthorized intrusion of containers'', and then goes on to say, such devices shall have false alarm rates that have been demonstrated to be below 1 percent.

In the letter that we received from the Coalition for Secure Ports, they were concerned that the 1 percent false alarm rate may be unacceptable, in that we have between 11 and 12 million containers coming into the United States per year. If you had this device on all of them, a 1 percent false alarm rate would create as many as 120,000 false security alarms in U.S. ports.

My concern is whether we are strait-jacketing the Secretary into accepting a device, if, in fact, it reached that 1 percent false alarm rate, or whether it would be at least 1 percent false alarm rate that is the intention of the author.

Secondly, the question is whether or not the gentlewoman's language requiring this to be a, ``device that positively identifies containers,'' whether that would restrict this to RFID, or Radio Frequency Identification, systems and not allow, for instance, optical character recognition or similar systems.

If that is the gentlewoman's intent and if that is, in fact, the impact of this amendment, I would have to oppose it, because it seems to me it would restrict us to one particular type of device. And I don't have the technology background to understand whether that one device is the silver bullet in this area.

I understand that one manufacturer, GE, uses it. They think it works well. But, as I understand, there are other manufacturers that are trying to work in other areas.

So those are the concerns I have.

And with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

So your intent in using the language ``positively identify containers'' is not to eliminate the possibility of optical character recognition or similar systems in meeting this particular demand.

I would just say that, with that understanding that they do not have those limitations of which I have concern, I would not object to this amendment. But I want to make it clear that the record reflect, number one, that if the Secretary believes we have to have a standard that is more precise than a 1 percent false alarm rate, that he have the discretion to do that.

And, secondly, that we are not limiting this to RFID systems or similar systems to RFID, that other systems of technology could also meet the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to obtain the time in opposition even though I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Southern California for working with us to modify the language of her original amendment so it achieves the purpose to which she intends and is not objectionable in any way.

There is no doubt that we want to make sure that we have layers of security, starting at the foreign ports,

through the period of time in which the containers are shipped, to just outside our ports, in our ports, and then as the containers leave our ports.

One of the things we have to do in this entire effort is to insert a notion of uncertainty in the minds of would-be terrorists. One the ways we do that is having layers of security all across the globe.

The gentlelady has suggested that we be explicit in our language with respect to the possibility of utilizing another tool in our toolbox, as she suggests, where we might be able to devise certain programs that utilize facilities that may exist just outside the port for purposes of looking at trucks for safety purposes, and we might be able to incorporate the terrorist security review at that point as well. If in conjunction with the authorities, local and state authorities, this kind of a grant request is made, we want to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security can, in fact, take a look at it. If it seems to serve the purpose to which we are all dedicated, then it would be allowed under this bill.

So I congratulate the gentlelady for introducing the bill. I also congratulate her for representing my hometown, the place I was born and lived in for 42 years.

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

Madam Chairman, I just say in response to the gentleman from Arizona, we have taken into consideration concerns that he has expressed. We have implemented in this bill an at-risk, that is a risk-based, assessment for grant programs. Not everybody gets something.

Secondly, I would assure the gentleman that Apache Junction will not get a grant under this program, nor any landlocked city in Kentucky. This is a port bill.

The third thing I would say is this is based on the assessment by the Coast Guard of what is necessary for the capital investment improvements from a security standpoint for all the ports in the United States. As a matter of fact, we only provide funds for half of the amount that has been identified by the Coast Guard.

This is not one of those grant programs that lasts forever. We have a 6-year sunset on this, and we have a specified revenue stream in this bill to take care of it. So I would suggest that we have looked at the complaints that the gentleman has, but this is a particular area of national security.

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

Madam Chairman, with all due respect, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Ms. Sanchez and I have worked together on this bill. We have reached accommodations on a number of different issues. We support the idea of the C-TPAT program. I certainly support her efforts to try and strengthen the C-TPAT program. I certainly have supported and incorporated in my bill the recommendation on her part that we allow for third-party validators so that we can get the manpower necessary to do the validations that are necessary in this program. However, I do oppose her amendment because I think it would cut down on the participation in this program.

One must understand that the C-TPAT program, Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, is

one that leverages industry cooperation to increase the security of the global supply chain. It has three tiers: tier 1 being the lowest, tier 3 being the highest.

The gentlewoman suggests that any benefits that are recognized under tier 1 to someone who has begun to participate in the program is unnecessary and somehow undercuts the credibility of the program. I would suggest that that is not true.

The conditions for obtaining the C-TPAT tier 1 status include that prior to an importer being certified, the importer must complete a comprehensive self-assessment of their current security practices, gauged against the clearly defined and published minimum security criteria.

If the security self-assessment completed by the importer reveals any security deficiencies and requires a corrective action plan, admission to the program and no benefits whatsoever are obtained unless those deficiencies are addressed to the satisfaction of the Department.

Third, with the security self-assessment completed, and initially identified deficiencies addressed, the Department again reviews for sufficiency with the minimum security criteria and also vets the importer through the law enforcement and trade databases, as well as through the El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC, for linkage to DEA and other law enforcement databases. If the importer's security profile demonstrates that the company is meeting the criteria, has positively passed vetting, and has a successful importing record, only then will the importer be certified as tier 1 and given a limited ATS score reduction.

In response to the concerns raised by the gentlewoman from California, we have incorporated into this bill penalties if, in fact, it is shown that they did not participate in the process completely and honestly; and, in fact, if they have had any misleading or false information in their application, they are mandatorily barred from participation in the program for 5 years. The reason why they get a small benefit in terms of the rating by beginning in the program with their application before they are fully certified is to give encouragement to get them into the program to begin with. It is more than just saying they are handing in a piece of paper. It is, in fact, a document that requires a good deal of work on their part; and we want to encourage participation in this program rather than discourage it.

C-TPAT is one of the layers, not the only one, but one of the layers that we have of security in our multi-layered approach, and so I would urge people to reject this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, again I would suggest that it is important for us to retain the program as it exists, for the Department to retain the discretion reward a small benefit to the Tier 1 members by reducing their ATS score. They do not move to the head of the line; they get to move up just a little bit. It is an encouragement to participate in the program.

The only way I can help the gentlewoman by suggesting that penalties do work is to suggest that deterrence does work. It is recognized in just about every other aspect of our lives, including the criminal justice system; and I don't know why she does not believe it will not work here.

As a matter of fact, in response to the GAO report that she referred to, the Department did reduce the amount of the ATS score reduction for Tier 1 members, so they have responded to some concerns that they were moving too far up the line. Not in front of the line, but too far up the line.

They get a small, small benefit at the present time. It is an incentive to participate in a voluntary program, which ultimately gives us more information, has more people working with greater security than they had before, and it helps us our a multi-layered approach.

Mr. Speaker, I came to this body with many of you to make sure that we did what was necessary to protect our constituents. I brought this bill to the floor, through the subcommittee, committee and to the floor with that promise in mind.

This is not, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, a Republican bill. This is, in fact, a bipartisan bill. Eighty cosponsors. Passed our committee 29-0.

There is a dispute with respect to this particular technology, and I might just refer you to the National Journal of this last week talking about this very issue. It said, nice idea, but not very feasible with current technology.

Eleven million containers are shipped to the U.S. ports each year. Of those, U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel physically screen, that means inspect, only about 6 percent, or 660,000.

It is a noble impulse, but, as a practical matter, it can't be accomplished right now, said Jack Riley, Homeland Security expert with Rand.

The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better equipment that scans faster. That is what our bill does. It asks us to accelerate our investigation into new technology. It mandates that the Secretary, if, in fact, he finds that to be usable, practical, adaptable, that he then negotiate with foreign countries to immediately put it into place and, if they refuse, gives our President and our Secretary the right to refuse to allow their cargo into the United States. We don't put a time limit on it. We said as soon as it is feasible to do it.

So as a great political philosopher, Don Meredith, once said, ``If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.''

We don't bring you a hope that cannot be fulfilled. We bring you a promise that can be fulfilled in this bill. Please vote down this motion to recommit.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This is one of those bipartisan moments in our consideration of a lobbying reform bill. Congressman George Miller, Congressman Howard Berman, Tom Cole, Doc Hastings have joined me as cosponsors of this amendment, and Congressman Jeff Flake worked with us in crafting this proposal.

Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, I would ask unanimous consent that his name be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is essential to those of us who have been elected to serve in this body to have confidence that the interests of the constituents are being served. The democratic process as well as the integrity of the people's House require no less.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Buckley v. Valeo, it is both corruption and even the appearance of corruption which threaten the public trust and warrant congressional regulatory action. The safeguards contained in this

amendment will protect the integrity of the process by allowing private travel which has nothing to do with corruption and which in fact contributes to our ability to effectively represent those who have elected us.

This bipartisan compromise provides that the Ethics Committee shall have until June 15 of this year to develop a permanent plan governing future private travel. In the interim, private travel would be allowed if, after its review, two-thirds of the Ethics Committee approves the trip. That requires bipartisan approval.

Our amendment will protect legitimate travel which relates to our ability as Members of this body, and I ask for support of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was in this body for 10 years and then out for 16. I have had a chance to look at the importance of travel as it adds to the information base that Members have. While we have had problems in certain areas of travel, we ought not to just throw them all out. This is a real effort to try and get transparency and to work on a bipartisan basis to make sure this works.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support this worthy amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that this is an attempt to have a balanced bill. I have worked as hard as I can with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and with the ranking member on my subcommittee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, to try and respond to a true challenge that we have before us, and that is the challenge of terrorists attempting to do harm to our country by going through our ports.

The very nature of our ports, the very genius of our ports, which is the just-in-time delivery, the inventory that is basically carried on ships these days, instead of stationary in large buildings on land, the very easy transfer of them from ships to trucks to be able to get into the middle of our country within the shortest period of time, times that would have been unimaginable just years ago, that very ingenuity, that creativity, also creates the vulnerability.

It is true that, following 9/11, we focused, not exclusively but more than any other area, on our aviation system. Now we have an opportunity to try and put a greater emphasis on security for our ports.

I was gone from this place for 16 years; 9/11 was the event that compelled me to return. I grew up in the shadows of one of the great harbors of this country, Long Beach. I worked there one summer when I was in college.

I have been able to see the tremendous growth and the change in the way our ports operate. I am proud of our ports. I would do nothing, I would do nothing to try and put them at risk. And I would say this base bill is a very good bill.

When I hear some of the discussion about the rule, it reminds me of my prior service in the House when I served for 10 years as a minority Member, where we did not have a right to a motion to recommit. We were given an opportunity for a motion to recommit when the Rules Committee decided they would give it to us.

Under the Republican rules of the House, a motion to recommit is given to the minority on every major bill. So those elements of concern that have been expressed by the minority side of substance of amendments that are not allowed under this bill we know can be put into a motion to recommit.

Now, that does not mean I am going to support it, because I think good and sufficient arguments can be made against some of the amendments that wish to be presented here in the floor and in the substance of the motion to recommit. But I just hope in the discussion on this rule and the discussion on the underlying bill we do not lose that sense of bipartisanship that has really been a watchword of this attempt to provide us with the response to a true challenge in this country.

The very vote that we had, 29-0 coming out of our committee, the fact that we have more than 80 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, gives the very indication of the bipartisan nature of this bill.

I get involved in partisan arguments from time to time, as you well know. But this institution does itself proud when it responds to the challenges that are out there facing our constituents. This committee, the Homeland Security Committee, has served this House well by its bipartisan approach under first our former chairman, Mr. Cox, and now our current chairman, Mr. King.

The Members on the Democratic side have worked very hard I think to work with us in a bipartisan way. So I hope the tenor of the debate tonight does not mislead people who may be listening into thinking we are not doing the peoples' business. We are doing the peoples' business. I am proud of the work that we are doing here. This is a good bill. We will debate some additional amendments. We will have a motion to recommit. And whatever comes out of that, this will still be a good bill.

Please support this rule and support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was absent from this House for 16 years, and I came back longing for some familiarity, but also hoping for some change. But as Yogi Berra said, when we have these budget debates, it is deja vu all over again. The same words I heard 18 years ago from the other side of the aisle still prevail: ``weaken,'' ``starve,'' ``slash,'' ``stab,'' ``kill,'' ``attack,'' ``assault,'' ``inflict pain.'' So I looked at the budget to see how much less it is than when I left here 18 years ago. It is so much larger now it is unbelievable.

When we had the head of the OMB, now soon to be the new chief of staff at the White House, appear before us, he said that if we do not start to control entitlements, mandatory spending, by the time my children are ready to retire, we will have no ability, he said, to spend anything on discretionary spending including the military. Think of that. We have come to a position now where the burgeoning of the entitlement programs is such that in another generation what the Constitution calls our first obligation, common defense, we will have no money for it. Now, how can this budget be so terrible? How can it be stifling?

When I left here before, if we had just frozen spending for a year, receipts would have caught up with spending. Now we are in a position that it would take 3 years of a freeze to catch up. This budget is not slashing, cutting. We are doing a little bit of trimming. Many Americans do not think we are doing enough.

And the whole idea on the other side is all we have to do is tax more. Look at what these tax policies have given us. We have a robust economy. We have lower unemployment rates. Our rates of unemployment now are below what economists told us when I was here before we could ever sustain. They talked about 6 percent unemployment being full employment. Now we are below 5 percent.

We should not sacrifice jobs on the mantra of increasing taxes, as my friends on the other side would have us believe.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, in 1992, while serving as California's attorney general, I was privileged to be appointed by President George H.W. Bush to be a commissioner on the President's Commission on Model State Drug Laws. This was a congressionally established commission that was charged with creating a model code of laws to help States effectively address alcohol and other drug abuse.

This commission conducted a thorough process which included five public hearings, 25 working sessions, travels around the country for that purpose, and input from hundreds of individuals and organizations working at the State and local levels, to address substance abuse.

The result of that commission was 44 model drug laws and policies which offered a comprehensive continuum of responses and services to address substance abuse problems. We had people from various disciplines in the mental health arena, in the law enforcement arena, in the educational arena, in the social services arena, all coming together to see whether or not they could come up with a continuum of responses to this terrible problem.

Since fiscal year 1995, Congress has provided funding for a nonprofit entity to advise States on laws and policies to address alcohol and other drug issues using as its base the model acts crafted by the President's Commission on Model State Drug Laws, to revise these model State drug laws and to draft supplementary model acts to meet changes in State substance abuse problems. They actually work with the States. They work with local governments to come up with these comprehensive approaches.

Having these services available to the States has been an enormous asset in combating substance abuse as States introduce and pass newer enhanced drug laws, create new guidelines and

policies, coordinate funding streams to use resources effectively and efficiently and develop or strengthen multidisciplinary partnerships at the State and local level. That is absolutely necessary if we are going to make real progress on this war on drugs and war on other types of substance abuse. Just look at the number of States that addressed methamphetamine-related problems through legislation this past year alone. Many of them benefited from the services I mentioned.

Because effective and cost-efficient State drug laws and policies are vital components of a strong national effort to address substance abuse, this amendment is offered to authorize appropriations of $1.5 million for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to better ensure that these key functions in assisting States are retained in the national drug control effort.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Tuskegee airmen. They sacrificed for a Nation they loved even when that love was not totally reciprocated. In 1941, the Army Air Force began a program to train African Americans as military pilots.

This was an era of segregation, when popular opinion was against training African Americans to become aviators, but the individuals of the Tuskegee experience showed the Nation and the world that they were equals. By overcoming many hardships, they cast aside the myths that had allowed segregation, inequity and injustice to prevail in society.

To break barriers, there is often one individual who will pave the way. The catalyst for African American aviation was Charles Alfred ``Chief'' Anderson. When first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, climbed into the back of Anderson's plane in 1941, a new chapter had begun for military aviation in America. His love for flying airplanes began at a young age and throughout his life gave wings to countless African American pilots.

In 1943, the Tuskegee airmen tasted combat for the first time. By World War II's end, the German Luftwaffe would know them as the ``Red tailed Devils'' and the American bombing crews would refer to them as the ``Red Tail Angels.'' During the war, the four African American fighter squadrons that made up the 332nd fighter group established their legitimacy with countless victories in the air. They also solidified a legacy of being highly disciplined and capable fighters by flying over 200 escort missions over Germany without ever losing a bomber to enemy fire.

For their service they were awarded high honors, including Distinguished Flying Crosses, Legions of Merit, Silver Stars, Purple Hearts, the Croix de Guerre, and the red star of Yugoslavia. A Distinguished Unit Citation was awarded to the 332nd fighter group for ``outstanding performance and extraordinary heroism'' in 1945.

The Tuskegee Airmen fought the Axis powers in Europe and racism at home. Their accomplishments spoke louder than words and provided evidence that led to the integration of our Nation's armed forces. It is important that we continue to acknowledge the sacrifices and service of these Americans who performed so admirably. The accomplishments of the brave Tuskegee Airmen will never be forgotten, and may they always remind us of the unlimited power of the human spirit.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, after 9/11, one of the most responsible things that this Congress did was to pass the PATRIOT Act. It tore down that wall that existed between the intelligence community and the law enforcement community, a wall that was specifically talked about in the 9/11 Commission report as one of the failures of our government to prepare for the threats that we had prior to 9/11. What we are doing now is reaffirming that responsible act by this Congress. This today is the final critical piece of the USA PATRIOT Act, reflecting the careful balancing of national security and the civil liberties of our citizens.

In total, over 30 changes, additional civil liberty protections, have been made to the base legislation. It reflects the reality that security must not be juxtaposed against the notion of rights. It is absolutely true that the first civil right of all Americans is the right not to be murdered, not to be murdered by terrorists.

The three additional changes contained in the bill before us, S. 2271, go beyond the 30 additions that we had in the conference report itself. There are civil liberties protections concerning, first, the ability to challenge the legality of a section 215 order. Section 215 deals with business records, including library records. Secondly, it adds civil liberties protections concerning the protection of the confidentiality of a name of an attorney to whom information has been disclosed. Third, it places limitations concerning the use of national security letters with respect to libraries.

These 30-plus changes to the underlying legislation were made despite the fact that in this last year we had 13 separate hearings on the PATRIOT Act; and in those 13 hearings we found not a single, single, incidence of abuse of the law. We placed the Attorney General of the United States under oath. We placed the number two person at the Justice Department under oath. We heard from supporters of this act; we heard from the detractors of this act. We examined the Inspector General's reports. We had the opportunity to look at classified data that backed up the request for the use of this act.

I personally did that, as well as other members of the subcommittee and the full committee; and we could not find a single example of an established abuse of the statute as written or as applied.

On the basis of the Bali terrorist attacks, the bombing in Spain, the terrible 7/7 incident in London, the threat to the safety and security of our citizens continues. It didn't end with the passage of the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act, as it has been implemented, has allowed us to protect ourselves from future such attacks.

We must not now lapse into a pre-9/11 lethargy. Unlike normal criminal investigations, terrorism presents law enforcement with the task of preventing a cataclysmic attack. That is why I rise in support of this bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2520. The fact of the matter is, I believe all of us would like to support the application of science and technical research to the problems of the day. There are times when we have moral dilemmas, and reference has been made to another bill involving embryonic stem cells which does divide many people in this country because of the ethical dilemma that is presented.

That is why it is so wonderful we have come today in support, those who may find themselves on the other side of the dilemma in the other respect, and come in common support for the cord blood stem cell bill. This is both a therapeutic and research bill. It is therapeutic in that it affords the banking of units that will be allowed to help people now, diseases that can be affected by the use of these units now.

So much of what we do here is theoretical. We hope that things might be accomplished by what we do. But we know that this will accomplish success right away. Secondly, it allows for research to see how far we can go in this area. It gives the opportunity for this which would otherwise be thrown away, placenta blood and the blood from the cord that is thrown away now on every single day, to be utilized for both research and for life-giving purposes.

Mr. Speaker, if I had the ability to, I would change the name of this bill to the Giving Life Twice bill, once with the production of new life and secondly with the use of that blood that otherwise would be thrown away to help someone else sustain their life; or we could call this the Lifeline bill. We are extending a lifeline of hope to those who otherwise would have no hope.

This is a joyous day here in this body. People may disagree on other matters, coming together in strong support for a bill that will save lives and save lives now.

Mr. Chairman, one of the primary attributes of a sovereign nation is the ability to control its own borders. In this regard, it is clear that the Constitution, article 1, section 8, places this duty right here, in the Congress. We have thus arrived at that moment of decision where the American people have a legitimate expectation that we will rise to this fundamental responsibility of governance.

As one who has had the opportunity to participate in the birthing process of this legislation in both of the committees of primary jurisdiction, I would be the first to acknowledge that this was not an immaculate conception. It remains my belief that a comprehensive approach to the issue is necessary if we are to maximize the effectiveness of our resources on the border.

However, it is critical that we have to take a first step. This bill should be judged on the basis of what it does contain, not for what it does not. On its own merits, this is a good bill. It is a good first step towards regaining control of our borders. And, furthermore, we have the assurances of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that other aspects of the larger immigration issue will be considered after our return. The decision has been made to begin the process of reform of the border security bill. Why? Because that is what the American people expect of us. Even if it is not a Rembrandt, it is not a bad paint job.

As one who participated in the crafting of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, actually as the Republican floor manager of that bill, I can tell the Members that it was on the issue of employer sanctions that that bill crashed and burn. That legislation made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. It was part of a carefully crafted compromise. It was part of the balance in the program. Little did we know that neither Republican nor Democratic administrations were going to enforce it nor Democratic nor Republican Congresses were going to support it. There is enough blame to go around. It is not just in the Executive branch. It is here in this body as well. And the American people now are demanding that we do something about it.

Under the law then passed, employers were to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all new hires. However, the explosion of a new industry dedicated to the production of false and fraudulent documents completely

undermined the employer sanctions provision of the bill. It did not have to happen that way. Congressman Hall of Texas offered a verification system somewhat like that contained in the bill before us. However, at that time I did not believe, nor did others in this body, that we had the technology to make it work. However, today, we do. It is incumbent upon us that we must learn from the past and have a reliable system of employment verification if employer sanctions are to work. A workable employment verification system is the critical linchpin in devising a strategy to demagnetize the attraction of unlawful employment.

These and other things are in this bill. This is a good first step. Let us not fall on our own swords in an effort to try to say we want a perfect bill. If we do not do this, we will not do anything.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of major provisions in this bill, and let me speak of one that has been referred to on both sides of the aisle, some in support and some not in support.

Section 407 which is the expedited removal section, this was adopted in the markup in the Homeland Security Committee. The question of expedited removal was one that we explored in our subcommittee. The specific context of our hearing involved the growing number of illegal border crossings by what is referred to by the service as ``other than Mexicans'' or ``OTMs.'' Let me explain what this is.

Most people who come across the border illegally from our adjoining countries, either on the north from Canada or on the south from Mexico, accept voluntary departure. They agree to voluntarily go home and agree that they do not go through the various processes involved. We cannot do that with those people who are not from those countries because neither Mexico nor Canada would accept them. So we have to have an acknowledgment from the country from whence they came, their home country, that they are, in fact, residents of those countries or citizens of those countries. That requires us to detain those people for some period of time. That requires detention space, and the subject that has been discussed before, the idea of catch and release was created as a result of insufficient detention space and insufficient resources dedicated to that proposition. After that was revealed by the press earlier this year, the administration responded by trying out a couple of pilot projects in certain sectors. Instead of catch and release, it was retain them and then have expedited removal. They found that to be successful, and so they have expanded it to the entire southern border.

Our bill mandates that not only be a temporary policy but a permanent policy. Yes, it does extend within 100 miles of the border, and it is limited to 14 days. That is, people who have been here less than 14 days, even though the underlying law allows it to be done for a 2-year period of time, it does not limit it to 100 miles from the border. This is a border security bill, and we limit it in that fashion. It is directed at those who have come here.

We even had the incident of a large number of people from Brazil this past year coming up, and we found that not only did they come across the border but instead of running away from our immigration officers, they ran to them. They ran to them to surrender, and they ran to them to surrender so they could be cited so they could actually get the citation which said you have entered this country illegally, you have to show up for your hearing 90 days hence. And 90-some percent did not show up.

My question is, why did the 6 percent show up? If you look at it, we have created a system with every incentive to come back. That has turned around because of the pilot project. What this bill does is mandates it. It is commonsensical. It is the right thing to do. It helps us take a right step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

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

Mr. Chairman, I have heard the references to the Berlin Wall. There is only one problem: The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, not keep people out. I do not recall in searching my memory a single example of people trying to jump over the Berlin Wall to get into East Germany.

This is for a different purpose. It is a different thing, and your suggestion that this is a Berlin Wall is only off by about 180 degrees.

Mr. Chairman, I do claim it; although I do not oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to be involved in this bipartisan amendment with my friend from Oregon.

The amendment addresses a dangerous flaw in our current system.

Under current practices, Customs and Border Protection does not receive the names of passengers on board international flights bound for the U.S. until after the flight is in the air, as the gentleman explained.

When CBP finally gets the passenger manifest, it sends it over to the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, so they can compare it against the terrorist databases. At that point, if they find a name match, there is no way to reconcile the situation.

This has resulted in numerous high-profile instances where a plane was forced to divert from its intended destination, I believe in almost every case while over the Atlantic. This inconveniences passengers and costs the airlines hundreds of thousands of dollars per incident. There have been, as I understand, seven diversions this year alone.

What is worse, since CBP and TSA have been operating this program, there have been two occasions on which the individuals flagged turned out to be the dangerous individuals on the watch list.

Fortunately, there is a commercially available system in use for flights to Australia that provides the airlines with a cleared or not cleared decision for each passenger in real-time, not 4 hours before or not 2 hours after they have taken off, but in real-time, at the time of check-in.

The system has been offered free of charge to CBP on a pilot basis. They have declined the offer and have yet to conduct any tests. Instead, they have been trying to internally develop a new system for over a year now. I believe we are wasting valuable time.

This amendment, at a minimum, will force CBP to conduct a test of the commercially available systems within 90 days of the date of enactment. If CBP can complete the development of its own proprietary system, we will also get a real apples-to-apples comparison of the various products.

Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will speed implementation of this vital program to ensure that the airlines will know who can board the plane safely and who cannot long before the plane leaves the ground.

I believe everyone agrees that is the best possible situation. We have, on a bipartisan basis I think, been frustrated by the responses we have received as to why they cannot develop their own program and why they then resist conducting a pilot program utilizing something that has already been done in another country.

The only question it seems to me is scaleability: Can they scale up to the volumes we have in the United States because obviously Australia is a smaller country with a smaller number of people? But in this computerized era in which we live today, I do not believe that scaleability is a problem. That is the reason for this pilot project.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his efforts and his willingness to work with me on this language. I would urge all Members to support this amendment.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I was absent from this chamber for 16 years after serving for 10. The compelling reason for me to return was the events of 9/11. And one of the things that I thought I would never see in the House of Representatives is an Alice in Wonderland type atmosphere where just because you say something, you think it is true.

The fact of the matter is, many of the complaints registered by my friends on the other side of the aisle are taken care of in this conference report. If you vote down the conference report, those sections that are not subject to sunset will continue on without any of the changes that the chairman has articulated. So the very arguments they are making against what they do not like about the law now should compel them to vote for this conference report because we make changes.

Madam Speaker, it is the primary responsibility of government to protect the safety of its citizens. The PATRIOT Act tears down that wall, that artificial wall that existed between the intelligence community and the criminal justice enterprises. And what we did was we said it made no sense, it made us more vulnerable to attack.

Some have said, look, these changes in the PATRIOT Act change what was current law. That is true because there was a need to do so. And some have argued all we need to do is to follow what has been the law in the past. The distinction that must be drawn is that, in the war on terrorism, it is not good enough to collect the evidence after a terrorist attack to try and bring people to justice. The imperative is to stop the terrorist attacks from occurring in the first place. That is why we have the differences in this law.

Yes, there is a different standard. The standard is to allow us to stop the terrorist attacks in the first instance. We have, as a result of oversight, and I have attended every single hearing in the subcommittee and full committee, done unbelievable oversight, reviewing every bit of evidence that has been out there. There has not been one single example of abuse proven, not one. The IG report could not find it. We could not find it. I have been to every single hearing that we have had, been with every witness. They could not prove a one. But because we are concerned about the possibility of abuse, we have put at least 30 additional limitations into this conference report. And so really the question is, do you believe in the essential foundation of the PATRIOT Act which makes changes, recognizing that we are trying to stop terrorist attacks before they occur, rather than doing the regular criminal justice activity of collecting evidence after the fact. I am not willing to place my children and grandchildren in jeopardy by defeating this conference report.

Introductory Comments

It is the primary responsibility of government to protect the safety of its citizens. The PATRIOT Act is a critical element in a strategy to provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to conduct antiterrorism investigations. This task is made all the more difficult in that unlike the traditional criminal case, our success will be measured by the ability to prevent a future terrorist attack.

The 9/11 Commission report observed that ``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home.'' Freedom presumes security. The converse is equally true. In the delicate balance of these important interests. our concern for liberty must not discount the consequences of a failure to keep Americans secure from a cataclysmic event. While it is important to avoid hyperbole on such a serious matter, the very nature of American life-- and the traditional regard for liberty--could itself be threatened.

At the same time, it is the solemn responsibility of committees with oversight responsibilitites to be ever diligent to assure that government does not overstep the proper limits of its authority in implementing the PATRIOT Act.

In this regard, in our oversight of the PATRIOT Act, the Judiciary Committee conducted 13 hearings and there was no finding of abuse. This was evidenced by the fact that opponents of the act resorted to attacks on the circumstances at Guantanamo, and the Creppy memo--issues related to the wider war on terrorism but unrelated to the PATRIOT Act itself.

Comments on Provisions Further Strengthening the PATRIOT Act

The conference report contains a number of provisions which maintain the integrity of those key provisions necessary to combat terrorism, while at the same time strengthening the protection of civil liberties:

Section 102 (sunset provisions)

As the author of the 10-year sunset provisions in the House bill relating to section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, access to business records the final language in the conference report responds to the critics of the legislation. The conference report contains the Senate language of 4-year sunsets of these same provisions and extends the sunset language to the ``lone wolf' provisions of the bill as well.

Section 106 (215 business records)

The conference report language relating to business record access includes additional protections not contained in current law.

The conference report explicitly provides for judicial review of any section 215 order.

If the documents sought pertain to sensitive categories of records-- such as library, bookstore, tax returns, firearms sales, educational and medical records--the FBI Director, Deputy Director, or the official in charge of intelligence must personally sign off on the application before it can be submitted to the court.

The conference report requires that the application to the FISA court must include ``a clear statement of the facts'' that demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe the tangible things sought are relevant to the investigation.

The conference report requires the use of so-called minimization procedures to regulate the retention and dissemination of information concerning United States persons and the protection of privileged documents.

The conference report makes it explicit that a recipient of an order has the right to disclose receipt to an attorney or other parties necessary to comply with the order.

Section 108 (206 roving wiretaps)

Section 108 of the conference report imposes several additional safeguards on the use of roving surveillance:

The conference report requires that the order describe the specific target in detail when authorizing a roving wiretap for a target whose identity is not known.

The conference report specifies that the FISA court must find that the possibility of the target thwarting surveillance is based on specific facts in the application.

The conference report requires investigators to inform the court when ``roving'' surveillance is used to target a new facility--such as when a terrorist or spy changes to a different cell phone.

Section 114 (sec. 213 delayed notice search warrants)

As the former chief law enforcement officer of my State of California, I want to first of all emphasize that delayed notice search warrants are not an invention of the PATRIOT Act. The delayed notice search warrant has been available to California law enforcement for years.

The conference report adds new safeguards relating to the use of delayed notice search warrants.

The conference report places a limit of 30 days on an initial request or on a later date certain if the facts justify such a delay.

Extensions of up to 90 days are possible unless the facts of a particular case justify a longer period.

Sections 115-119 (national security letters)

The language in the conference report provides for explicit judicial review of an NSL.

The conference report provides that a recipient of an NSL may challenge any non-disclosure requirement in court.

The report clarifies that a recipient may disclose receipt of an NSL to an attorney or other necessary party.

Conclusion

There is a total absence of any evidence of abuse of the PATRlOT Act. Furthermore, the conference report adds further protections against any potential abuse of the law. The conference report represents a careful balance between our responsibility to protect Americans from terrorist violence, and our responsibility to avoid any potential violations of their civil liberties.

The enactment of this legislation is critical to this endeavor. There are those who will attempt to come here for the sole purpose of murdering innocent Americans. It is our responsibility to keep this from happening. We must provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to carry out this task.