Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman King for his hard work on this much-needed legislation.

Mr. Chairman, before running for Congress, as the chairman indicated, I had a counterterrorism background as a Federal prosecutor in the Justice Department. My jurisdiction included the Mexican border. Based upon this experience, I have a direct understanding of America's need for this comprehensive border security legislation; and I am proud to say out of our committee, Mr. Chairman, it was truly bipartisan.

The Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act is a result of the United States' grave and perpetual problem with undocumented aliens. An estimated 8 million to 12 million undocumented aliens are here in the United States. Last year alone, over 1 million illegal aliens were apprehended at the border, and the Border Patrol estimates that many more have crossed undetected. In addition, there is evidence to support that al Qaeda would like to exploit our southwest border, and we know that it is vulnerable.

In the post-9/11 world, these figures no longer represent just an immigration problem, but rather one of national security. America's borders are being compromised by our inability to identify those who are coming into our country. This commonsense legislation will work to fix this growing problem and will greatly enhance security along our Nation's borders. If passed, America will begin to establish operational control of its borders and ports and have a national strategy, thereby ensuring a safer and more secure home for all of us.

I am honored to serve on the Homeland Security Committee and to have played a role in the drafting of this important legislation, including the mandatory detention provisions which will end the so-called catch and release policy of undocumented aliens, particularly those from other countries other than Mexico. Unknown OTMs crossing our borders present a dire national security risk, since most of the detained OTMs are immediately released into our streets never to return for their court date. Sadly, the number of OTMs crossing America's border has tripled over the last 3 years.

The second provision that I was proud to have a part in was to reimburse State and local law enforcement agencies for the cost they bear due to the national border security burden. If we have learned anything after 9/11, it is that the Federal Government must work with the State and local law enforcement to prevent terrorism.

It is our duty, indeed it is our responsibility as Members of this distinguished body, to do everything in our power to ensure that another 9/11 never occurs in this country again. This vital piece of legislation will greatly advance our efforts towards preventing terrorists from entering our shores.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Let me say at first, I have great respect for the gentlewoman from Texas, and I know this is a well intentioned amendment. However, I believe there are numerous problems with this amendment.

It is unnecessary and seeks to create a class of aliens who will are not be detained with the rest of the alien population. However, the mandatory detention provision of H.R. 4377 preserves the already existing parole authority under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act that waives mandatory detention and releases aliens for urgent humanitarian reasons or for significant public benefit. In other words, the Secretary already is empowered and has discretion to release juveniles and aliens who have serious medical conditions in which continued detention would not be appropriate and women who have been medically certified as pregnant, the very classes that the gentlewoman seeks too release.

Also, this amendment creates a whole new bureaucracy that is not necessary. It takes away power from the department and those who are really experienced with these issues and concerns involving the detention of aliens and empowers independent groups, NGOs and academic experts from the immigration and the criminal justice field, with the authority to design this program separate and apart from the Department of Homeland Security. This amendment also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into contracts with groups including the NGOs and individuals to implement the program.

Simply put, this amendment applies only to illegal aliens who are in expedited removal, which is typically 30 to 90 days. Such individuals will be removed quickly from the United States. Allowing them to be released outside of what the statute already prescribes would only create more incentive for them to enter into and remain in this country.

In addition, this amendment seeks to protect aliens with valid claims of asylum who are already protected under this bill. H.R. 4377 does not change current law regarding those with valid claims of asylum. They currently have and, if this bill passes, will still have that right. Detention of such aliens is still discretionary once placed into asylum proceedings.

And, finally, this amendment seeks to shift the authority for unaccompanied alien children to the Department of Health and Human Services. We have a serious and significant youth alien gang problem in the United States, MS-13, for instance, whose members are primarily from El Salvador and enter illegally into the United States across our land borders. Some of these gangs are dangerous criminals and such members of alien gangs who could potentially be not only criminals but terrorists. This amendment provides for a sweeping shift of power from the Department of Homeland Security to HHS to deal with such aliens. I submit that DHS has the expertise to deal with aliens.

We are in a crisis. That is why we are debating this bill today, and mandating this change in law is not how the government should be responding to these types of serious problems. This provision, simply put, removes all discretion from the Secretary of Homeland Security, where it properly resides, to determine who should be detained and not detained. And, therefore, for those reasons, I respectfully oppose this well-intentioned amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sure we can point to extreme examples, but the fact of the matter is that the statute does already provide and gives the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security discretion to release juveniles, aliens with medical conditions and aliens who are medically certified as pregnant. I think this is already addressed by the law. And, therefore, this well-intentioned amendment, I believe, is unnecessary.

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

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

The gentlewoman's, again, well-intentioned amendment says that the Secretary shall, mandatory language, shall design a program in consultation with nongovernmental organizations and academic experts in immigration and criminal justice. Again, this is a very serious matter, and I believe that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is in the best position to make these determinations, not outside groups. And, of course, the Secretary can get any advice he wishes, but this is a decision for him to make and not for outside nongovernmental organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution to express the idea that democracy and terrorism are not compatible and that statesmen and terrorists cannot coexist. I want to thank Mr. Cantor and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for their assistance and hard work in bringing this important resolution to the floor. I would also like to thank Mr. Menendez, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Berkley, and Mr. Wexler for their partnership on this issue.

We have come here today in a very bipartisan fashion in order to deliver a message to Mr. Abbas and to all other developing democracies in the rest of the world.

The future of Palestinian democracy cannot include terrorists and religious fanatics. The first step of President Bush's road map to peace calls for the disarming of Hamas and other terrorist organizations, as well as the dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure. The Palestinian people will have a future only if their leaders begin to take responsibility for the well-being of their citizens, and they must end their obsession with the destruction of the State of Israel.

Democratic parties cannot control armed militias. If the Palestinians wish to have a democratic country, Hamas must lay down its arms, and it must renounce the use of terrorism and violence, and it must recognize Israel's right to exist; or they must know that this Congress will not be a friend to their government. Terrorist organizations do not have a place in a peaceful political process.

It is not unprecedented in recent history for a terrorist organization to lay down its arms, to renounce its violent ways, and then to be accepted into a legitimate democratic government. The IRA has accomplished this, and Hamas

has had the opportunity to do this. But instead, they have repeatedly vowed to continue bloody terrorist acts against innocent Israeli citizens and stated their intentions to seek the destruction of the State of Israel.

President Abbas himself has called for the Palestinian Authority to act with one authority, one law, and one gun. But actions speak louder than words, and this upcoming election is the test for him and for Palestinian democracy.

The Palestinian government has not taken the necessary steps to accomplish this goal, and President Abbas' apparent willingness to allow Hamas to participate without preconditions is disheartening.

The United States has a longstanding policy of not dealing with or making concessions to terrorists. We do not negotiate, we do not trade with, and we do not fund terrorists. Therefore, there is no diplomacy to be had with terrorists, and the Palestinian Authority will be a terrorist government if Hamas candidates are elected.

And what if members of terrorist organizations are elected? Should American taxpayers be forced to send foreign aid to the hands of these terrorists? Should we be giving them an opportunity to divert American foreign aid directly into the hands of terrorists who have pledged to kill innocent civilians? The answer is no.

This resolution is a message to President Abbas. If the Palestinian Authority is determined to continue and allow Hamas to participate as planned, then this government will have to take a new look at our relationship with the Palestinian government.

I urge my colleagues to support emerging democracies in the Middle East and to support this important resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

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

In closing, I would submit that we all would like to see a peaceful resolution to this. There are many ways to build a democracy. We encourage statesmen to explore all of them and to find the one that will benefit their people the most. However, to allow terrorists and murderers to participate and allowing political parties who control armed militias to gain phony legitimacy through elections is not productive and will ultimately lead their country off the path to democracy. Furthermore, it will force us to reassess our relationship with the Palestinian Authority.

I strongly urge President Abbas to heed this warning, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the people in the gulf coast States have always lived with the threat of devastating tropical weather, including hurricanes. In fact, the worst natural disaster to ever befall America was the Galveston hurricane of 1900.

To this day, I personally know many families who lost loved ones in this horrific hurricane some 105 years ago. In fact, my grandfather, who was only 8 years old at the time, barely survived the devastation, while some 10,000 perished trying to overcome the high waters.

My grandfather was heroically saved by rescuers who found him clinging to a tree in the flooded streets of Galveston. Sadly, it seems that history and nature have a way of repeating themselves.

Like in the Galveston hurricane of 1900, the streets of New Orleans were flooded to the tops of trees and homes by Hurricane Katrina, and people relied on the goodwill of others to survive that devastation. To that end, my home State of Texas has done an outstanding job in the Katrina relief effort, persevering in the face of Hurricane Rita, which made landfall on the Texas coast 1 month after Hurricane Katrina.

It goes without saying that our hearts and prayers are with those who are fighting for their lives and their communities and the areas hit by these hurricanes. Despite their dire situation, I know how brave and capable the people are in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. They will overcome the damage and fully recover. They will rebuild and return home as they were meant to, but they will need our help and support.

Before Hurricane Rita hit, I visited the Katrina relief efforts in my district, and Vice President Cheney and I met with the Texas Emergency Management Agency. They used computer models to demonstrate the effects of a hurricane similar to Katrina hitting the Texas coast. The images revealed that Galveston Island could be completely submerged and the streets of Houston flooded if a strong hurricane were to hit that region.

At the time, we could not have known that this similar scenario would play itself out in Texas in just a matter of days. Fortunately, Galveston and the greater Houston area were saved; and unlike Galveston a hundred years ago, there was no direct loss of life due to Hurricane Rita. This is due to the efforts of the real heroes of the State and local first responders who protected life before the storm struck.

To that end I would like to thank everyone who has stepped forward and helped the hurricane victims by donating, volunteering, and working together to overcome this tragedy, especially Texas Governor Rick Perry; Austin Mayor Will Wynn; Houston Mayor Bill White; Katy Mayor Doyle Callendar; Tomball Mayor, Hap Harrington; Harris County Judge Robert Eckels; Ann Hodge and the Katy Chamber of Commerce; Bruce Hillegeist and the Tomball Chamber of Commerce; Tomball Fire Department Chief Randy Parr; and the Interfaith Ministries of Greater Houston. Their leadership, persevering through sheer tragedy, has been invaluable to the response and recovery process from both storms.

This cooperation partnership, brotherhood, community and faith, all succeeding in the face of absolute disaster, is truly an example of the resilience of the American spirit.

If nothing, this can teach us that if we plan ahead and work together, we can save lives and overcome the worst of nature's fury. This common bond is our duty as friends, as neighbors, and as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I visited the Katrina relief efforts in my district, and Vice President Cheney and I met with the Texas Emergency Management Agency. They did an outstanding job in the Katrina relief effort, but now we are faced with another hurricane--Hurricane Rita.

As I speak to you now, Rita, a category 5 hurricane, is bearing down on the coast of Texas and is projected to hit near Galveston. Now more than ever, this kind of leadership is needed for our communities in Texas.

Along with the mandatory evacuations in the Gulf Coastal region, there currently exists a voluntary evacuation in the Greater Houston area for flood plains, and neighborhoods near main bayous. Although these evacuation orders are voluntary, the Federal Emergency Management Agency strongly suggests that in the event of a hurricane all evacuation orders must be honored to prevent needless loss of life.

If we work together, we can save lives. This is our duty as friends, as neighbors and as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for his leadership on this issue. He has been the point man on this in Congress, and he has done a great job. I am proud to work with him on this, and proud to call him my friend as well.

Since September 11, we have made this Nation's security and prosperity our number one priority. Halfway around the world, we fight terrorism and promote freedom with the strength of our military. In our own hemisphere, we have several different weapons in the strength of our economy, our business and our trade that will help to guarantee our safety. We must utilize these tools to prevent tyranny and evil from gaining power in our own backyard.

For years, our Central American neighbors were torn apart by civil wars that epitomized the global battle between good and evil. With our help they have created stable and free governments. However, that battle is far from won. There are those who would like to reverse the progress that we have made, and those who wish to use the fragile state of our friends' democracies to attack our very existence.

In order to win the war on terror, we must continue to guarantee the stability of democracy in our own hemisphere. The citizens of this country have entrusted us with their safety and their well-being. They have asked us to represent their interests and to help increase their standard of living. Job creation should not fall prey to politics. We need to rise above partisan politics to work for the good of our country.

That is why this week my colleagues and I in the United States Congress will vote for legislation that will strengthen our economy, our security, and our way of life. The Dominican Republic and Central American Free Trade Agreement will help reinforce freedom and democracy throughout our entire region.

When considering the benefits of CAFTA, we must consider the pitfalls of not passing it. With the improvement of our economic relationship with Central America, we will see an improvement in our security relationship.

Recently I met with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, and he made it clear to me that this trade agreement is crucial to our national security. We are currently engaged in a war on terror on the other side of the world, while there are already terrorists who are using Central America as a base of operations against the United States. This trade agreement is not only good for our economy, it is also vital to our national security by stabilizing Central American democracies.

In addition to international terrorism, we must also mind the rising

threat of China's global influence. If the United States does not adopt CAFTA, we will see China take our place as Central America's biggest and most important trading partner. This would mean an increase in America's trade deficit with nations all over the world and make the United States a secondary economic power. Twenty years ago we helped Central America fight a war against Communist forces, and now China is trying to reassert its influence within our own hemisphere. We will not allow this to happen. This trade agreement keeps America ahead of China and will increase America's financial security. Through CAFTA, Central America should continue to see the U.S. as its main trading partner instead of Communist China.

And on the issue of immigration, by passing CAFTA and helping people to create a better life in Central America, the citizens of those countries will be motivated to work, to prosper, and, most importantly, to stay in their own countries. Working with America, their standards of living will increase. Ultimately my home State of Texas and the rest of the Nation will spend less time and money combating the problem of illegal immigration. This is really, in my view, the long-term solution to our immigration problem.

CAFTA will also level the playing field. CAFTA represents the completion of our trade relationship, not just the beginning of one. Through unilateral preference programs already approved by Congress, nearly 80 percent of CAFTA imports and 99 percent of CAFTA ag products already enter the United States duty free. CAFTA will make this one-way road a two-way superhighway by giving our agriculture and industrial goods and services access to their markets. We will level the playing field by eliminating high tariffs, tariff rate quotas and nontariff barriers. My home State of Texas will be one of the top three States to benefit by enacting this trade agreement.

On the issue of new jobs, CAFTA countries, which include the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, are the United States' largest market for domestic apparel and yarn exports and the second largest market for U.S. fabric exports. Trade with these countries exceeds trade with countries like Australia and Russia. This deal is critical to sustain and expand existing partnerships to give CAFTA goods a competitive edge, particularly with the elimination of global quotas and increased competition from Asia. This trade agreement will help support approximately 400,000 jobs in Central America and the Dominican Republic and 700,000 workers in the United States in cotton, yarn, textile and other apparel sectors.

On the issue of agriculture, America's farmers are also expected to see increases in the needs from Central America for their crops and livestock. Some of the most important U.S. exports to the region expected to gain significantly from CAFTA include feed grains, wheat, soybeans, poultry, pork and beef. That is why the American and the Texas Farm Bureau support CAFTA.

On the issue of technology and business, this agreement creates huge potential profits for our technology industry. CAFTA holds the promise of new opportunities and expanded markets for a wide array of U.S. high-tech merchandise, exporters, manufacturers, service providers and their employees. Total U.S. high-tech exports to Central America in 2003 totaled nearly $2.5 billion. From Dell to Samsung to Applied Materials to Hewlett Packard, the high-tech industry in Texas and the United States will benefit greatly from this trade agreement. And as the standard of living improves in these countries, the demand for more advanced technology will grow with it.

In conclusion, it is essential that we pass CAFTA. Along with President Bush, I believe this trade agreement will mean increased safety and security for our Nation. With their own nations seeing prosperity, Central Americans will have less reason to illegally cross U.S. borders looking for better opportunities in our country. America's farmers and businesses will find new and easier ways to export their goods and services to the tune of billions of new dollars. For the average American, CAFTA will mean a cost savings at the grocery store. And for the entire Western Hemisphere, this trade agreement will spread and strengthen democracy, peace and freedom.

CAFTA has support, wide and deep, from many groups, but it is important to note tonight those who oppose CAFTA. CAFTA is opposed by Marxist leftists and terrorist leaders such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. In addition, this vote is being watched carefully by Iran, North Korea and China, who all stand to gain by the failure of this vote, a vote we cannot afford to lose.

We cannot afford to turn the clock back, as the gentleman mentioned. We won that war 25 years ago, but now we see instability in the region. We see President Chavez down in Venezuela aligning himself with people like Fidel Castro, asking Iran for nuclear technology. We have a triborder region down in South America where al Qaeda and groups like Hezbollah meet and discuss their activities. The threat is very real. It is no surprise that Fidel Castro and President Chavez oppose CAFTA because they know that there is nothing better for us and for Central America in spreading democracy than for CAFTA to get passed. That is why President Hugo Chavez has actually sent money to legislators in Nicaragua to actually oppose CAFTA in their country.

I think if we fail to pass it, we will give the enemies of freedom a victory. That is a victory we cannot afford to turn over. This is the first of many trade agreements. If this does not pass, it takes away, in my view, a lot of credibility on the part of the administration when it goes to other countries and tries to broker agreements. In the defeat of communism, socialism, and the spread of freedom and democracy, that is why I am here tonight. That is why I ran for Congress, and that is why it is so important that this Congress pass this important piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this valuable legislation to fund NASA, and I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for his extraordinary leadership on this issue.

Americans have high hopes for the future of the space program. But if we are to explore the boundaries of our final frontier through the President's Vision for Space Exploration, NASA and its manned space flight program must be adequately supported. This legislation does just that, and it also gives NASA Administrator Mike Griffin the tools he needs to work towards the completion of the International Space Station.

In the 1960s, President Kennedy helped us begin the race to the Moon. And the United States reached that lofty goal six times with the Nation watching and listening to every mission. We won that race then, and now we must adopt again the same spirit of enthusiasm for space exploration. Accordingly, President Bush has laid out a plan that sets a goal of returning Americans to the Moon within 15 years.

However, the success of the Vision For Space Exploration is predicated on these goals being in the heart of tomorrow's scientists and engineers. To meet this need, the President's plan will again make space exploration an exciting and educational priority for America. He has made it clear within the next half century, America will be the world leader in space exploration with missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond.

We must keep in mind that we are not the only ones pursuing this goal, and America is once again in a space race. European countries are peacefully competing against us in a race to be the first country to land a man on Mars. And to win this race, NASA must work with the private sector, universities around the Nation, and possibly other countries to overcome the most challenging technological obstacles NASA has yet to face.

The successes that are surely to come from the vision will benefit not only America and its manned space flight program, but humanity and our planet will be direct benefactors of this historic undertaking.

In a world tattered by war and terrorism, the NASA space exploration program brings the hope and promise of a brighter tomorrow for our children and for future generations. Our goals to explore the endless boundaries of our universe will and must continue. They are efforts linked to no political party or branch of government. Our need and want to explore space and the bodies around the Earth belong not just to Americans but to humanity. Indeed, they are efforts to continue what humans have done since our inception and that is to explore.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership on this important legislation, and I rise today in support of this bill.

I served in the Justice Department before and after 9/11. I led the Department's counterterrorism efforts in the United States Attorney's Office in the State of Texas. I worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces fighting this war on terror in the trenches. I know firsthand that this PATRIOT Act provides the necessary tools to win this war on terror at home.

Significantly, the PATRIOT Act tore down the wall between the criminal division and the intelligence side of the house. Prior to this it was dysfunctional. The left hand literally did not know what the right was doing. The 9/11 Commission reported this wall may have contributed to 9/11. An FBI agent testified that efforts to conduct a criminal investigation into two of the hijackers were blocked due to concerns over the wall. Frustrated, he wrote to the FBI headquarters and he said, some day someone will die. And wall or not, the public will not understand why we were not more effective at throwing every resource we had at certain problems. Let us hope that the national security law unit will then stand behind their decisions, especially since the biggest threat to us now is Osama Bin Laden.

Today, thanks to the PATRIOT Act, this wall has come down. It helps us connect the dots by removing the legal barriers that prevented law enforcement and the Intelligence Community from sharing information.

But the PATRIOT Act provides many other tools for law enforcement in this war on terrorism. It updates the law to the technology of today. The PATRIOT Act also takes laws which have long applied in drug cases and organized crime cases and applies them to the terrorists, such as the roving wiretaps, such as the delayed notification for searches. It makes no sense for us to apply these laws only in drug cases and not in the most important cases affecting our national security, cases involving terrorists. And contrary to critics' assertions, the Justice Department cannot do anything without court supervision. The U.S. PATRIOT Act does not abrogate the role played by the judiciary in the oversight of the activities of Federal law enforcement.

And while we are talking about libraries, let us not forget al Qaeda operative Mohammed Babar who used a computer in a library and when asked after he was arrested why, he said because the libraries will scrub the hard drives.

I can envision no bigger national security mistake than to go back to the way things were. We owe it to the citizens of this country to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, for if we do not and another terrorist attack occurs on our shores we will surely all be held accountable.

Mr. Speaker, Texas and our Nation has lost one of its most genuine and gracious public servants. Last Saturday morning, James Jarell Pickle, ``Jake,'' passed away on Saturday, with his wife by his side. For 31 years, Congressman Jake Pickle represented my hometown in this esteemed body as a Representative to the 10th Congressional District of Texas. And he did so with integrity, humility, honor, and a sense of humor that we should all attempt to mirror.

As a current holder of Congressman Pickle's seat, I work hard every day to provide the same kind of service to my constituents that Jake Pickle did to those he served. He was not just good at what he did, he was the best.

His family talks about the proudest vote he ever cast was in 1964 when he voted for the Civil Rights Act. He was one of only six southern Representatives to vote for that important piece of legislation. In the 1980s, he worked hours on end to protect Social Security and keep it solvent. He worked even harder in the 1990s to turn Austin into the high-tech society that it is today.

It is because of Jake Pickle that Austin continues to see new high- tech businesses locate to Texas's capital city. The University of Texas has also benefited greatly because of Jake Pickle. UT would not be churning out the latest in technology and new patents, as it now does every year, without the help that Congressman Pickle provided. It is also my honor to represent the research arm of the University of Texas which bears the name J.J. Pickle Research Campus.

But even as good and as smart a politician as he was, he is known today not for his ability to influence legislation or to help bring new

business to his district, but rather for being a good and decent man. It is for this reason his nickname was Gentleman Jake. This gentleman served in the Navy during World War II, and worked his way through college by delivering milk to Austin homeowners. During his first congressional campaign and every time after when he was out in public, he was shaking the hands of those he served. He enjoyed hearing about their lives and telling stories about his. He listened to their problems and sometimes used his own money to fix whatever problems they were having.

Representative Jake Pickle was a good man who will be terribly missed by all who knew him.

So tonight as I stand in the well of this esteemed body, a place so loved and respected by Jake, I am comforted in the thought that the Lord above is thankful to have this great servant back home in heaven where I am sure he is telling stories and shaking the hands of everyone that he meets.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack). I want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership on this very important issue.

We are currently engaged in a war on terror halfway around the world, a war to bring freedom and democracy to a part of the world that has never seen it. That is a noble and just fight. However, we must also ensure the viability of freedom and democracy in our own neighborhood. Twenty years ago, we fought against Communist forces attempting to gain footholds in the Western hemisphere, and now we face threats from an agent of Castro, China and Iran.

On several occasions, President Chavez has attempted to intimidate the United States and has launched unfounded attacks on our President. He has threatened to shift all oil sales away from the United States and towards China. He has aligned himself with the only remaining Communist dictator in the Western hemisphere. And he has allegedly approached Iran in search of nuclear technology.

Since his election, Chavez has worked to break down the most basic principles of freedom, including the right to free speech and unbiased information. He has restricted the media that has been critical to his government and he has opened a state-run media outlet. This amendment would create parity of information and allow the people of Venezuela the opportunity to hear more than just the propaganda of Hugo Chavez. It will allow the people of Venezuela to hear the truth.

I urge my colleagues to support this pro-democracy amendment. I thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing this to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), and I would like to thank her for having the courage under fire to bring forth what should be a noncontroversial amendment.

In recent months, certain Members of Congress have called upon the President to discuss his exit strategy, to give the date when the last American soldier will leave Iraq. There will come a day when we will leave Iraq, but, as the President stated, ``Our strategy can be summed up this way. As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.''

Demanding that we simply put a date on the calendar is not only naive, but it poses a danger to our troops, a grave threat to our interests in the Middle East and a victory for the terrorists. By signaling to them when we intend to leave, the terrorists can simply wait it out and then strike the Iraqi people.

We have had great progress in the training of Iraqi forces. With the passing of every day, Iraq is becoming a more secure and free nation. We must remain steadfast in our determination to defeat the terrorists and only leave Iraq when we have accomplished the job we promised to do. To demand otherwise is a desecration to the memory of those who have died for the cause of freedom.

Tomorrow I will be participating in a signing ceremony at the White House with Bill and Janet Norwood, who were recognized by the President of the United States at the State of the Union. They lost their son, Byron, in Fallujah as he saved seven Marines' lives. Like all the Bill and Janet Norwoods I meet out there, they all say the same thing to me, ``finish the job.''

Mr. Speaker, we will finish the job. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), who is my neighbor, and thank him for his leadership on this important issue. I serve on the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on International Relations, but that is not the experience I would like to talk about tonight. I would like to discuss my experience in the Justice Department prior to running for Congress which, in my opinion, is very relevant to this discussion.

I served as a Federal prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section at Main Justice when the so-called wall between the criminal division and the FBI's foreign counterintelligence was in place. After 9/11, I served as the Chief of Counterterrorism and National Security for the U.S. Attorney's Office in the western district of Texas. My jurisdiction included the President's ranch, the State Capitol, and the Mexican border. I worked very closely with the FBI and the CIA on the joint terrorism task forces. In that capacity, I practiced law as a Federal prosecutor under the USA PATRIOT Act provisions, including the one that brought down the wall.

I also served as deputy attorney general under then Attorney General and now United States Senator John Cornyn. I would like to take us back to the last decade. In 1995, the U.S. Attorney General adopted policies and procedures for contacts between the FBI and the criminal division concerning foreign counterintelligence investigations. This policy prohibited the criminal division from directing or controlling foreign counterintelligence investigations. Eventually, those procedures would be narrowly interpreted to act as a wall to prevent the FBI and intelligence officials from communicating with the criminal division.

As noted by the 9/11 Commission Report, this wall may have created a climate that helped contribute to 9/11. An FBI agent testified that efforts to conduct a criminal investigation of two of the hijackers were blocked due to concerns over the wall. Frustrated, he wrote to FBI headquarters saying, ``Someday, someone will die, and wall or not, the public will not understand why we were not more effective in throwing every resource we had at certain problems. Let us hope the National Security Law Unit will then stand behind their decisions, especially since the biggest threat to us now, Osama bin Laden, is getting the most protection.'' This was 9/11.

Another illustration of the wall creating dangerous confusion is in the case of Wen Ho Lee and the Los Alamos investigation. The first time the chief of the Counter Espionage Section in the Justice Department heard the name Wen Ho Lee was when he read about him in the New York Times.

Indeed, in my own experience I was assigned to investigate allegations that China attempted to corrupt and influence our elections. With the cooperation of witnesses, we were able to uncover some evidence that the director of Chinese intelligence may have funneled money to influence the Presidential elections. The frustration came from the lack of coordination and communication with the foreign counterintelligence side of the House, particularly when our criminal investigation moved into the intelligence arena.

Ultimately, these examples portray an inefficient system in which the left hand literally did not know what the right hand was doing. As stated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Quarterly Review, they said: ``Indeed, effective counterintelligence we have learned requires the whole-hearted cooperation of all government personnel who can be brought to the task. A standard which punishes such cooperation could well be thought dangerous to national security.''

Mr. Speaker, today, thanks to the PATRIOT Act, that wall has come down. The PATRIOT Act helps us connect the dots by removing the legal barriers that prevented law enforcement and the intelligence community from sharing information and coordinating activities in a common effort to protect national security. It dismantled the walls of separation and enabled a culture of cooperation that is essential to our integrated antiterrorism campaign.

The President and the Attorney General recognized that without the ability to share information, including intelligence, we risk the very survival of this Nation. As stated by Senator Leahy about the PATRIOT Act: ``This bill breaks down traditional barriers between law enforcement and foreign intelligence. This is not done just to combat international terrorism but for any criminal investigation that overlaps a broad definition of foreign intelligence.''

My experience in the Justice Department after the wall came down was profound and dramatically improved. As chief of counterterrorism, I spearheaded the efforts of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. No longer did the barriers of communication exist. Indeed, the FBI's foreign counterintelligence agents and the intelligence community were full partners at the table. For the first time, the FBI intelligence files were reviewed by criminal division prosecutors and agents.

Our greatest task and our greatest task today remains to identify and locate the terror cells which may be in this very country. One of the tools we used to achieve this goal was through the use of national security wire taps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In addition to these wiretaps, the PATRIOT Act provides many other tools for law enforcement in the war on terror. First, the PATRIOT Act updated the law to the technology of today. No longer will we have to fight a Digital Age battle with antique weapons, legal authorities left over from the era of rotary telephones.

Next, it promotes efficiency by providing for nationwide search warrants in terrorist cases. Investigators and prosecutors save valuable time because they are able to petition the local Federal judge who is the most familiar with the case and who is overseeing the nationwide investigation.

While most of the matters I worked on since the PATRIOT Act remain classified, one example that I can share this evening was a provision in the PATRIOT Act which was extremely helpful in a case involving allegations of a terrorist attack on July 4, 2003. In late June we received intelligence from a specific and credible source that a terrorist attack was going to occur on July 4 in my home State of Texas. At the same time we also received e-mails from an Internet chat room from an individual named Apostasy Hears Voices. He threatened to commit terrorist acts at numerous locations throughout the United States as a member of an unknown terrorist cell.

And specifically, the individual threatened on July 4, 2003, significant locations in Austin, Texas; Washington, D.C.; New York; Miami; Charlotte; San Francisco; Seattle; and Portland would be attacked by terrorists. The voice stated, ``I have planned a little event for July 4, roasted Americans on Independence Day. It will be the second largest terrorist demonstration in U.S. history.'' He described himself as having the name ``Ali Aussie,'' a student at the University of Texas who had been on a ``mission'' for 4 years on a student visa as a member of a terrorist cell.

He stated that each cell acts independently for the most part so that if one cell gets caught, the other cells are not compromised, which is consistent with how al Qaeda operates. He concluded with the following words: ``I did enjoy watching Americans burn alive in the WTC event. BBQ Americans.''

We were getting this real-time from the Internet chat room. The JTTF

quickly went into action sharing intelligence, information and coordinating with multiple jurisdictions. By utilizing the PATRIOT Act, I was able to save valuable time by obtaining a nationwide search warrant for electronic evidence for terrorist-related activities. Given the urgency of the matter and the potential loss of human life, time was critical and of the essence. These provisions allowed us to execute search warrants on the Internet service provider in real-time. Once we received the information, an arrest warrant was obtained and the defendant was arrested on July 3, the day before the planned attack.

The defendant was charged with using the Internet to make threats to kill or injure persons by an explosive device. Fortunately, the threat on that day turned out to be a hoax. But had it been a real threat, and we have to assume they all are, we would have saved lives. That in my judgment is what the PATRIOT Act is all about, protecting and saving lives.

There has been much talk from critics of the PATRIOT Act regarding allowing many of the information-sharing provisions in the law. Having served under its provisions before and after the bringing down of the wall, and the implementation of the PATRIOT Act, I can envision no bigger national security mistake than to go back to the way things were. The PATRIOT Act takes laws which have long applied to drug dealers and organized crime and applies them to terrorists.

For example, for years law enforcement has been able to use roving wiretaps which follow all communications used by a suspect as opposed to just one telephone line. The PATRIOT Act simply authorizes the use of this technique in national security intelligence investigations and amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conform to the parallel provision found in the Federal wiretap statute. Contrary to critics' assertions, the Justice Department cannot do anything without court supervision. The USA PATRIOT Act does not abrogate the role played by the judiciary in the oversight of activities of Federal law enforcement. Federal agents still have to obtain judicial approval before they can search a residence and before they can install a wiretap.

I would like to leave Members with the following words which are disturbing but I think kind of ring home why we are here tonight and talking about this important issue.

The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals, or Aristotle diplomacy. But it does know the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and the machine gun. Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established as they always have been through pen and gun, by word and bullet, and by tongue and teeth.

The words that I just read are the preface to the al Qaeda training manual. These words demonstrate the widely held belief that the question is not if the terrorists will strike us again, but rather when and where; and we had better be prepared.

Thomas Jefferson once said ``the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.'' Those words ring more true today than ever before.

We owe it to the citizens of this country to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act, for if we do not, and another terrorist attack occurs on our soil, on our shores, we will surely all be held accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) for managing this important debate on probably what is the most important issue facing this Nation today. As we heard the names of the men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who paid the ultimate sacrifice just a few minutes ago in this Chamber, I say to the families, we remember. We thank you. We will never forget.

Every day I meet, it is part of our job, we meet with the families who have lost loved ones over there. And they all tell me the same thing, and that is, finish the job; I do not want my son to have died in vain. And finish the job we will. We thank you for your sacrifice fighting this war on terror abroad so that we do not have to face it here at home. And it has made this Nation more secure in our homeland.

Back home, this Congress has moved faster than ever in passing legislation, which, among other things, fulfills the 9/11 Commission's recommendations by bolstering the security along our borders and sending the badly needed funding to those areas of our Nation that terrorists still see as targets. Indeed, recently the Homeland Security Committee visited Ground Zero. The tragic events of 9/11 are still very much alive and well in that city. We met with the police commissioner. We met with the Liberty Street Firehouse, the fallen heroes, the families who survived that tragic day, who lost so many people. And I can tell you, you can feel it. It is as if it happened just yesterday.

And everything we do in this Congress is to provide the tools necessary to ensure that another 9/11 never happens again in this country. The need for this hard-hitting legislation comes from the United States grave and growing problem with undocumented aliens. An estimated 8 to 12 million undocumented aliens are here in the United States, and it is also estimated that two slip across the border for every one that is apprehended. That means that almost 3 million undocumented aliens enter our country every year; to put it in perspective, roughly the size of the city of Dallas. And in the post-9/ 11 world, these figures no longer represent just an immigration problem, but rather one of national security.

This Nation is being compromised by our inability to identify those who are coming into our country. And I am convinced that the first step we need to take to solve this problem is to secure our borders and to better enforce the laws currently on the books. Congress knows that immigration plays a major part in our national security. Accordingly, we have provided more than $1.5 billion in spending for border protection, immigration enforcement, and related activities in the 109th Congress.

When combining the homeland security authorization and appropriations bill that the House has passed, Congress has supplied funding for all 2,000 new border patrol agents that were recommended by the 9/11 Commission and fully authorized by last year's intelligence reform bill. These agents will have greater authority to detain and incarcerate illegal immigrants, instead of sending them back into our communities with a notice to appear in court, something very few abide by.

Indeed, we do not have to look too far back in history to see an example of this when Ramsey Yusef entered our country in 1992 and was apprehended. He too was given a notice to appear. He too failed to show up to the hearing, and instead he joined his fellow colleagues from the bin Laden academy to join the first al Qaeda cell in the United States. He then conspired to blow up the World Trade Center. Fortunately, he was not successful. But that day would come later and his dream would be realized with Osama bin Laden's dream to bring down the towers that fateful day.

But I say to you, the days of this catch-and-release policy are numbered. Congress has also worked hard to ensure that when border patrol agents catch undocumented aliens, we now have somewhere to hold them before they are extradited. Congress has funded over 4,000 new detention beds to help our Federal law enforcement uphold our Nation's immigration laws.

Our Federal law enforcement officers are being stretched too thin and being asked to do too much. According to current law, immigration laws can only be enforced by Federal law enforcement officials. Couple that with existing sanctuary policies in most of our big cities and one can easily see why our Federal officers have such a difficult time enforcing the laws on our borders.

This is why I offered an amendment to the Homeland Security Authorization Bill that would fund local law enforcement training at Federal facilities in order to create a force multiplier so that our Federal law enforcement gets the assistance it needs.

These additions will crack down on illegal immigration in between our borders and ultimately lessen the threat of terrorism.

Congress has also passed legislation to make America's first responders more expeditious and more effective by improving the process by which they receive their resources. The Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act guarantees that the States with the biggest risk and the greatest threats receive the necessary funding to protect their communities. My home State of Texas, for example, currently ranks last in the amount of homeland security dollars received per person. And that in a State which claims an international border, the Western White House, and a prominent State capital.

Texas and other States like New York should be receiving more money than those other States with fewer targets. And by closing these gaps in the defense of our homeland, we have learned what our weaknesses are and how to better prepare for, defend against, and preempt a terrorist plot.

Those like al Qaeda who wish to do harm to America have a track record of being patient and conspiring until they succeed in their terrorist agenda.

In my former job, I was chief of counterterrorism in the Justice Department, I had the Mexican border, the State capital, I had the President's ranch. I can tell you the threat is very much still alive in this country, and we need to give law enforcement every tool necessary to protect us and to fight this war on terror not just abroad but at home.

And with that in mind, this body has moved to address that threat. The House passage of the 2006 Homeland Security Authorization and Appropriations Act and Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responder Act send a clear message to our enemies that we will not stand idly by while they plot to do harm to our Nation.

As the President stated, we will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I attended the funeral of Congressman J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle--a former member of the House who represented the 10th District of Texas for 31 years. As the current representative of the 10th District of Texas, it was my duty to pay homage to Congressman Pickle who gave so much to Texas and his constituents.

In doing so, I was absent for legislative business on the floor, and missed the opportunity to vote in favor of an amendment to the Constitution to prevent the desecration of the flag. As an original cosponsor of this amendment, I would have voted ``yes'' to preserve the ultimate icon of American values.

Since 1994, there have been 119 instances of reported flag burning or desecration in the United States, but just one occurrence of this should be reason enough to outlaw this heinous act.

All 50 States have enacted resolutions asking Congress to pass a flag protection amendment, and an overwhelming majority of the American people have consistently supported the protection of our flag. Accordingly, the House has passed a flag protection amendment by more than the \2/3\ majority needed in 5 separate Congresses.

Countless men and women, including my father, who are all heroes, have served under the glory of its stars and bars and died to ensure its spirit, and desecrating our flag is a desecration of their contribution to America. The American flag serves as the world's most recognized symbol of freedom and democracy, and should be given the appropriate respect and protection.

Mr. Speaker, Texas and our Nation has lost one of its most genuine and gracious public servants. Last Saturday morning, James Jarell Pickle, ``Jake,'' passed away on Saturday, with his wife by his side. For 31 years, Congressman Jake Pickle represented my hometown in this esteemed body as a Representative to the 10th Congressional District of Texas. And he did so with integrity, humility, honor, and a sense of humor that we should all attempt to mirror.

As a current holder of Congressman Pickle's seat, I work hard every day to provide the same kind of service to my constituents that Jake Pickle did to those he served. He was not just good at what he did, he was the best.

His family talks about the proudest vote he ever cast was in 1964 when he voted for the Civil Rights Act. He was one of only six southern Representatives to vote for that important piece of legislation. In the 1980s, he worked hours on end to protect Social Security and keep it solvent. He worked even harder in the 1990s to turn Austin into the high-tech society that it is today.

It is because of Jake Pickle that Austin continues to see new high- tech businesses locate to Texas's capital city. The University of Texas has also benefited greatly because of Jake Pickle. UT would not be churning out the latest in technology and new patents, as it now does every year, without the help that Congressman Pickle provided. It is also my honor to represent the research arm of the University of Texas which bears the name J.J. Pickle Research Campus.

But even as good and as smart a politician as he was, he is known today not for his ability to influence legislation or to help bring new business to his district, but rather for being a good and decent man. It is for this reason his nickname was Gentleman Jake. This gentleman served in the Navy during World War II, and worked his way through college by delivering milk to Austin homeowners. During his first congressional campaign and every time after when he was out in public, he was shaking the hands of those he served. He enjoyed hearing about their lives and telling stories about his. He listened to their problems and sometimes used his own money to fix whatever problems they were having.

Representative Jake Pickle was a good man who will be terribly missed by all who knew him.

So tonight as I stand in the well of this esteemed body, a place so loved and respected by Jake, I am comforted in the thought that the Lord above is thankful to have this great servant back home in heaven where I am sure he is telling stories and shaking the hands of everyone that he meets.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule and this important piece of legislation. And I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his leadership on this important issue, and it is an honor to serve with him on the Committee on International Relations.

World leaders gathered in 1945 to implement a vision that began with President Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, was conceived by President Franklin Roosevelt and brought into existence by Harry Truman, now known as the United Nations. What the United Nations has become today would surely break the hearts of these great men.

More than just a group of countries working towards peace, the United Nations represents the idea that each human being deserved a better existence. What happens at the United Nations today does not represent these ideals. And until the United Nations becomes the body envisioned by these giants of the past, until it becomes a place where the good of mankind is truly advanced, and not a place where the agendas of tyrants and dictators are protected, we should not continue to pay 25 percent of the United Nations budget.

There are those who believe that we should simply leave the U.N. and start over, and there are moments when I wonder if really there is no other option. There may be a day when this becomes inevitable, but now is not the time to cut and run. Now is the time to hold the United Nations accountable. It is important for the United States to remain engaged and a player on the world's stage to enact these important reforms.

This legislation has offered 39 important reforms with the teeth of tied to funding, which will return honor and integrity to what was once a distinguished body.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.