Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Second Opinion

Coverage Act--legislation that will ensure the accessibility and coverage of medical second opinions.

Imagine that your doctor tells you that you must undergo radical surgery that may threaten the use of a limb or leave you with a serious chronic condition. Understandably, you would request a second opinion from another physician. Most health care groups see the value in such requests and provide patients with a second opinion. Besides giving patients much needed peace of mind, second opinions can benefit health plans by reducing the number of invasive procedures and result in better patient care through increased dialogue about treatment options.

However, when I was a member of the California State Assembly, I heard from a number of patients who experienced a glitch in their health care coverage. They noticed the absence of a clear process for obtaining medical second opinions. These patients, many struggling with challenging health conditions, had difficulties obtaining second opinions through their health plans.

After meeting with patients, physicians and health groups, I authored a law in California that guarantees coverage of second opinions. Patients, meeting any one of several qualifying conditions, are entitled to a timely second opinion by a ``qualified health care professional,'' within 72 hours in cases of serious or imminent health threat. When another expert is not available within the provider group or network, the organization will pay for an appropriately qualified doctor outside of the plan. Patients are responsible for the costs of applicable co-payments.

The law in California was a good first step. Unfortunately, this legislation does not cover the more than 4 million Californians enrolled in self-insured, federally regulated health plans. Nationwide, this translates into almost 51 million persons without guaranteed access to second opinions. This means that one in four insured families are not protected by California's own second opinion law! I believe the time has come to make access to second opinions a national standard.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues to pass this critical legislation into law.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, today we are considering how the Defense bill can best provide for the men and women serving overseas. The Davis-Harman- Sanchez amendment lifts the current restriction on reproductive care in overseas military hospitals and permits servicewomen to walk into a U.S. military hospital, a familiar and trusted place, to use their own private funds for safe and legal pregnancy termination services.

Under current law, women have to return home for medical services after obtaining permission from their commanding officer and finding space on military transport. The other option for them is venturing out to a hospital in a foreign country if, in fact, they are able to do that.

Servicewomen do not receive the protection of the Constitution they defend. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat that again. Servicewomen do not receive the protection of the Constitution they defend.

We trust women in the military to secure our safety. We ask women to put their lives at risk for our freedoms. So why is it that we do not support them when they require safe and legal medical services?

I want to clarify a few points about this amendment. No Federal funds would be used for these procedures. Military women would use their own funds. This amendment only affects overseas military hospitals and would not violate host country laws. It will, however, open up reproductive services at bases in countries where abortion is legal. And it does not compel any doctor, any doctor who opposes these procedures on principle, to perform one.

I ask that all the Members support our servicewomen, support our servicewomen by supporting the Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire into the time we have available.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Putnam). The gentlewoman has 6 minutes remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, as we consider this amendment and others today, I want to urge my colleagues to consider the following questions:

What message do we give to the brave servicewoman whose life is on the line this very minute in Iraq? What message do we give the young woman who recently chose to join the military and defend this country?

Distilled to its essence, this defense bill reaches to the heart of some very basic questions about America's policy towards servicewomen and how we choose to treat them. And the question is, will we treat them equally and with respect, or not?

Military women deserve the right to make private medical decisions according to their own beliefs and to receive timely care from a doctor. They should not have to find themselves alone on a plane to the U.S. or alone in a foreign hospital.

The Davis-Harman-Sanchez amendment is about safety, individual responsibility and fairness. I believe we owe our servicewomen this much.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I think that several of our colleagues want to really put this issue aside, but I think it has had an impact. I spoke to Sergeant Cynthia Hanna this morning. Sergeant Hanna works for the San Diego Police Department and is a Marine Corps veteran. Like many women in Iraq right now, Sergeant Hanna was an integral part of the fight. But let me tell you where her fight is now. Her fight is on the streets of San Diego.

I thought Sergeant Hanna summed up the issue best. Not once did she talk about whether this is a Democrat or Republican issue. She said, ``The desire to serve has never been about women's equality to the exclusion of readiness considerations. The struggle,'' the struggle, ``is about the privilege of serving one's country without artificial barriers based solely on gender. Women's struggle for a place in the military has been about seeking the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The struggle is about women being judged by the same standards as men in any job for which they can qualify. It has always been about being able to pursue a career based on individual qualifications rather than unrelated stereotypes.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 366. I want to thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for his leadership in crafting a bill which could receive bipartisan support.

Mr. Chairman, as we all know, education for careers is terribly important for young people. Members have worked hard to balance planning for academic courses and introductory training to create a seamless move from secondary to postsecondary education.

In my district there are several community colleges which offer excellent training for nursing and the health support occupations, as do the universities. But the truth is that high school students need to have taken the math and science courses that will enable them to move into these post-secondary courses directly. They deserve to progress quickly to qualify for these needed and available jobs.

But I have to reiterate the concern that I expressed in committee when I offered a sense of the Congress amendment to state that this Act must not only be reauthorized, but also funded. Unfortunately, that amendment failed on a party-line vote. I appreciate the sentiments that were expressed saying that well, of course appropriations would be made for the program.

But Members, we have failed to do that. Last week we passed a budget which omits funding for this program as well as for programs like Trio and GearUp that also help high school students prepare for post- secondary education. So it is only wishful thinking, I am afraid, to suppose that this $1.3 billion program can be paid for as part of the President's proposed $1.2 billion high school initiative, along with many of the other 48 unfunded education programs. I believe that our young people deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act of 2005, a bill to allow any eligible voter to vote by mail in a Federal election if he or she chooses to do so.

In my home State of California, voters already have this right. California is one of 25 States that already provides this convenient alternative to voting.

While I personally love the ritual of going to the polls to vote, I know that getting to the polls on Election Day is often difficult. And for some, it is impossible.

That is why I have introduced a bill that builds upon the growing trend of States to bring the polls to the voters. I believe we should try to meet our constituents halfway by increasing access to the electoral process.

What I am proposing is not new or even untested. States ranging from my home State of California to Wisconsin to North Carolina to Maine have already adopted this voter-friendly policy.

Citizens can vote from the convenience of their own homes. They will have more time to mull over their choices and make informed decisions. And they will be able to do so on their own terms, potentially avoiding long lines at the polls.

Not surprisingly, studies have shown that some of the bigger supporters of voting by mail are parents who must schedule time to go to the polls around so many other obligations.

Studies have also indicated that adding the option to vote by mail does not create a partisan advantage for one political party over the other. Republicans and Democrats both benefit from similar increases in voter turnout when voters are given the choice to mail in their ballots.

In fact, overwhelming support for voting by mail is consistent across nearly every demographic, be that age, income level, race, education, employment status, and ideology. It is a win-win for all Americans.

After adopting a universal right to vote by mail system in 1978, California saw a 30 percent increase in the use of mail-in ballots.

In my district of San Diego, 40 percent of voters opted to mail in their votes during the 2004 election. And other States that have implemented this policy have seen the same degree of support from voters, which is why it is hardly surprising that States offering the option of mail-in ballots often experience greater voter participation.

States providing universal access to mail-in ballots during the 2004 election saw a 6.7 percent increase in voter turnout. And again, this increase was uniform across all demographics, including political affiliation.

There is also extremely low incidence of fraud with voting by mail when compared to other methods of voting. The State of Oregon, which runs its elections entirely by mail, has prosecuted only four cases of fraud over the last six elections.

Mr. Speaker, as the former president of the League of Women Voters of San Diego, I care deeply about the integrity of our electoral system. Twenty-five States have already proven this option works and it is safe. It is time to give voters in the remaining States this convenient, secure, and affordable alternative.

While I am proud to be from a State where citizens already have this right, I believe democracy works best when all citizens have an equal opportunity to have their voices heard. Right now, an uneven playing field exists between States that already offer the option of mail-in ballots and States that do not.

When the same election is more accessible to voters in California than it is to voters in Maryland, the system is unfair.

States that fail to offer this choice stand to compromise their leverage in Federal elections by curbing the greatest level of voter participation. We should follow the lead of half of our Nation's States and ensure a uniformity of rights for all voters.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this effort to strengthen the Democratic process and give American voters the choices they deserve.

Mr. Chairman, I rise regrettably in opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. While there are many good provisions in the act that make modest improvements in support of energy efficiency, there are major deficiencies in this bill.

My constituents are very clear about the problems they face. First, gas prices are too high at the pump. Second, our country will always have to rely on foreign-produced oil. Third, the costs of electricity have been inflated by the manipulations of energy corporations which have not been required to refund their illegal profits. In addition, many are concerned about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions. This measure does not strongly address these issues.

The cost of gas is a function of supply and demand. This body had the opportunity to enact a wisely balanced policy to reduce the demand for oil in this country and to address the supply of fuel by investing aggressively in

alternative energy sources. The President's own energy administration have said this bill will have only negligible impact on production, consumption and imports of oil. In fact, they said it will probably increase the price of gasoline by 3 cents per gallon.

What this bill does is to authorize more money for existing energy producers to increase oil drilling in sensitive areas for sources of supply that will not greatly reduce future reliance on foreign oil. The President himself declared that with oil costing over $50 per barrel, the oil industry does not need further incentives to increase production. Price alone does that. Yet, this bill provides $8 billion in subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

The President proposed $6.7 billion for tax breaks for energy with 72 percent invested in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. Instead, this bill reduces that investment to 6 percent. Even an existing program to provide tax credits for wind power will sunset this year and has not been renewed in this bill. Yet, high costs of electric energy must be reduced by use of renewable sources for power.

A major way Congress could have acted to reduce petroleum demand would have been to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobile fleets. A major report by the National Commission on Energy Policy advocated enhancing oil security by reforming and significantly strengthening vehicle efficiency standards. Within a relatively short time, expanding the production of vehicles with existing technologies could have reduced fuel consumption of automobiles and U.S. oil demand. Yet, an amendment to increase fuel efficiency standards failed.

The Commission also advocated providing $300 million per year in manufacturer and consumer incentives for production and purchase of efficient hybrid-electric and advanced diesel vehicles. This bill falls short of that goal, providing only $35 million for 2006 for grants to develop hybrid technology and no funding for incentives to manufacture or purchase them.

Regrettably, the amendment to strike drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge also failed. Drilling there would not address the near-term supply of oil and therefore gas prices and is not projected to have a major impact on reducing dependence on foreign oil. In fact, this country cannot be self-sufficient in oil. We must reduce our demand.

Related to an issue of great concern to Californians, the bill protects producers of the additive MTBE from liability for their knowing sale of a product which seeps into local water supplies rendering them toxic. Initially, an amendment striking this was not allowed to be debated and voted. States like California could be stuck with paying the estimated $29 billion bill for cleaning up these sites of leaking storage tanks and polluted water supply.

There are a host of other issues that affect my constituents on the coast of California. These relate to the ability to appeal decisions under the Coastal Zone Management Act and incentives for drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill removes the power of states to determine siting of liquefied natural gas facilities. There are also provisions which will reduce the incentive for states to clean their air, thus increasing global warming.

In addition, the bill increases the power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the body which has failed to order appropriate refunds for California utility consumers based on the 2000-2001 manipulation of the power market.

While I applaud a number of measures, like continuing the Energy Star program for appliances and providing grants of $50 million in 2006 to develop or promote photo voltaic technologies, these measures are modest compared to the overall need for investing in alternative energy sources and passing measures to decrease our dependence on petroleum.

Mr. Chairman, I support this bill so that we can, and the public can, rely on the energy-conscious information that they are getting and that they know that is correct and accurate, and they can move forward with that.

Mr. Chairman, Members, are your constituents also asking you what you are doing about high gas prices? We must answer that question in this bill.

Individuals can do something about their gasoline consumption when they select a car to buy. We need to help them.

People expect that, when they look at the window sticker, the miles per gallon figures that the EPA supplies are what they will get when they purchase the car.

They are not.

When one of my staff members complained to the car dealer that the gas mileage figures were way off for City Driving for the car she had selected for its fuel efficiency, the dealer said, ``Oh, that doesn't apply to driving in DC.''

I support this amendment because it would require the EPA to correct the long-standing inaccuracies in its testing procedures.

Our constituents must be able to rely on these facts to be the energy-conscious consumers they want to be.

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan to Amendment No. 5

Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). I have long admired and respected his efforts since I was elected to Congress and began serving with him on the Committee on Armed Services.

I want to take a moment now to specifically mention our military families. By now, every American should be familiar with the daily contributions and sacrifices made by our service members, but we have to remember that their families serve, too. Many spouses remind me all the time that when the military prepares for deployment, well, so do their families. As a former military spouse myself, I am incredibly grateful and humbled by their unique sacrifices. With so much of our attention on other things, their contributions often go unnoticed and underappreciated. I want our military families to know that we are working to improve the family-support infrastructure that exists for them. Access to family support services should be consistent without regard to where the families reside. Use of technology can certainly enhance their access to family support, but it sure cannot take the place of a support network.

Democrats are seeking more innovative ways to fund child care for military families, to provide a fully resourced, comprehensive and portable health care benefit, and to increase the value of the commissary and exchange benefit.

We have also made progress with addressing the demand for family housing. This has included privatization initiatives, military construction, and adequate funding for the basic allowance for housing. Democrats are also exploring ways in which we can work together with DOD to enhance educational and employment opportunities for military spouses.

And I can tell the Members firsthand how difficult this is when faced with the challenges of the military life-style. By recognizing the contributions of our military families, we have identified a critical part of addressing future recruiting and retention needs of the military. We must continue to recognize their sacrifices as well as those

made by the service members themselves.

This is an important task, and I am hopeful that Congress will continue giving this the concerted attention it deserves as we prepare the Defense Authorization bill for next year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this bill adds to the burden of military families finding basic financial strength.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a pressing national

need. The resolution I present here is a recognition of our responsibility to protect the American people from the horrors of radiation exposure as best we can.

In this era of terrorism, the ultimate fear has always been the detonation of either a nuclear or radiological device in an American city by terrorists. Even a low-yield nuclear device is capable of causing large-scale damage.

After a blast occurs the radiation that follows is also an enormous concern.

We cannot counter the effects of a thermonuclear explosion. However, science is developing countermeasures to the medical effects of radiation exposure. These whole-body drugs, known as radioprotectants, represent a great step forward in protecting American citizens from the horrors of terrorism in the nuclear age.

This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that these drugs, if proven safe and effective, should be purchased and stockpiled by the federal government at the earliest possible opportunity under Project Bioshield.

This resolution recognizes the potential these drugs stand for, and is the first step toward appropriating the first effective medical countermeasures to radiation sickness. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution as part of our responsibility to safeguard American lives.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate Gracia Molina de Pick. Gracia celebrates her 75th birthday on March 28, 2005. I am honored to have this opportunity to pay tribute to an exceptional community leader. Gracia is a mother, a daughter, a leader, and most of all, a beloved friend.

San Diegans will honor Gracia at the Centro Cultural de la Raza's International Women's Day. Her friends, family, and supporters will join together to salute her for her selfless and steady dedication to advancing women's causes and improving our community.

Her life story is a great adventure where she fought historic socio- political battles. She battled for obtaining women's suffrage in Mexico. In the United States, she fought for women's equality and acceptance in the workplace. She worked to promote the participation of women and people of color in the democratic process.

Gracia is the people's activist. She has dedicated countless hours to improving the quality of life for women and people of color. Many leaders in San Diego will tell you that she leads by example and is quick to take people under her wing. Gracia is a proud founder of the first Chicano and Chicana studies program at Mesa Community College. In 2002, she was inducted into the San Diego Women's Hall of Fame. She is a mentor, advocate, grassroots activist, and teacher.

I have always appreciated the kind advice she has provided me over the years.

I wish to congratulate Gracia Molina de Pick for her untiring work on behalf of women, minorities, and our community at-large.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 122.

For years, we have known that, to be competitive in the world, Americans must acquire the language capacity to speak with our counterparts. Personally, for myself, when my husband was stationed in Japan during the Vietnam War, we lived in a Japanese community, and with my toddler and baby there, I learned some minimal Japanese so that I could speak with and spend time with my neighbors in a way that was really meaningful to both of us. We became friends, and the importance of language study became so real to me in those days.

In San Diego, we are keenly aware that so many of our residents are bilingual. Indeed, in our schools, students come from homes where English is not spoken. Over a hundred languages are represented in our schools.

As a school board member, I have worked hard to develop better training of foreign language instructors and to bring in more initiatives that recognize the diverse languages in our schools, but I must say that that issue really did not progress nearly as much as I would like, and in fact, today, we still have issues around certifying teachers in many different languages.

Critically, we are also so aware that our service members must be equipped with even the basic ability to speak with the citizens of Iraq and with the citizens of Afghanistan. So I am proud that our service personnel in Camp Pendleton are now being given that very introductory language instruction from our higher education institutions.

It is clearly appropriate that we establish a year of languages to focus on the importance of developing proficiency in a language other than English, and it must be a strong initiative that we bring forward. It will only be meaningful, however, if we only move forward and we develop a kind of strategic plan so that we find the resources, and more than anything, we find the will to make foreign language development an integral part of our daily lives.

I salute my colleague for bringing this forward. I thank him very much because I think it has to be the kind of initiative that goes beyond many of our dreams for this area. It must have the kind of applicability that says this is important to us; this is important to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a national tradition that has helped thousands of America's veterans escape homelessness and recover from drug and alcohol dependence.

In 1988, two Vietnam veterans shared a vision. Dr. Robert Nachison and Mr. John Van Kuren wanted to take action to help their fellow veterans struggling with homelessness or addictions.

Dr. Nachison and Mr. Van Kuren developed a plan to hold a three-day event in San Diego to bring together the resources veterans would need to turn their lives around for the better. Their vision brought food, shelter, counseling, drug and alcohol treatment all in one place 17 years ago in San Diego. They called this event ``Stand Down.''

Dr. Nachison himself said he thought it would be a one-time event. He had no idea that within a few years, almost every major city in the United States would stage its own Stand Down or similar event.

Since then, thousands of homeless veterans across the nation have received the assistance they need and have escaped the streets because of the assistance at Stand Down.

Mr. Speaker, I attend Stand Down in San Diego each year and have met veterans who have the courage to seek help. I have heard dozens and dozens of moving stories.

Johnny Bonds, for instance, is a Navy veteran from San Diego. He began to drink heavily and became an alcoholic by the time he left the service.

Mr. Bonds was separated from his wife and young daughter as the drinking began to take its toll.

He lived for six years on the streets in Southern California and continued to drink heavily. In 1996, he attended the annual Stand Down in San Diego seeking food and shelter for the night.

He had no idea Stand Down would completely change his life.

Over the three days, he learned of a drug and alcohol treatment program administered by the Vietnam Veterans of San Diego. He enrolled and completed the program within a few months.

Mr. Bonds, now 52 years old, has been sober for years and never again spent one night on the streets. He has maintained a full-time job.

He was also reunited with his daughter after 20 years apart. Today, he visits her on a regular basis.

Mr. Bonds' story is not uncommon. Stand Down provides our homeless veterans with a tremendous opportunity.

Since 1988, thousands of veterans have taken advantage of this opportunity and are living better lives today.

I am introducing a resolution honoring Dr. Robert Nachison and Mr. John Van Kuren for acting on their vision and for providing thousands of veterans with another chance at life.

This resolution also recognizes the veterans who attend Stand Down and who have the courage to do what it takes to live productive lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Maria Plasencia, a beloved San Diego activist. Maria passed away on February 1, 2005. She is survived by her parents, Alma and Jesse Plasencia of Crown Point, Indiana, and brother, Jesse Jr. of Schererville, Indiana.

If an issue involved equality and social justice, Maria was among the first to rally her fellow feminists. Last April, as an official and activist in the San Diego Democratic Club, she organized a 500-member San Diego delegation that joined the March for Women's Lives in Washington, DC. After organizing San Diego's effort in the March of Women's Lives--which drew about a million people to Washington--Maria was elected to NOW's national board.

To those who knew her, bringing hundreds of San Diegians for the march in Washington, D.C. exemplified her uncompromising beliefs and her ability to galvanize grass-roots support. Her colleagues describe Maria as energetic and passionate about her beliefs. A diabetic, Maria did not let her condition stand in the way of pursuing her interests or from leading an active life.

In her role as an activist and in her job as an auditor for General Electric Commercial Finance, Maria traveled extensively. She enjoyed meeting new people and seeing the country. Cities and small towns alike fascinated Maria, delighting in each one's population and character.

Maria grew up in Crown Point, Indiana. Her father, a steel mill worker, had come to the United States from Mexico as a young man. Maria became the first member of her family to attend college and graduated with a degree in accounting from the University of Dayton.

Her career brought her to San Diego more than a decade ago. A longtime feminist and

supporter of NOW, she jumped wholeheartedly into local politics. Through her volunteering, Maria developed contacts that brought her into the San Diego Democratic Club. Called ``a staple of the work crew,'' Maria quickly distinguished herself through her participation. She was elected Chairwoman of the Women's Caucus in 1999 and Executive Vice President in 2001.

Maria has left behind a legacy. The President of the San Diego Democratic Club had the following to say, ``As we do things within our club--increasing its diversity, making it more woman-friendly--it will be in no small part due to the memory of Maria. ``

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deepest sympathy to Maria Plasencia's family by celebrating her life and contributions to the San Diego community. Maria was admired by so many for her dedication to women's issues and the friendly and effective manner she brought to activities. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. Chairman, although I support the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment. I am very glad to see my friend and colleague finding a good and realistic way to get 21st-century technology to complement the way we police and protect our borders.

Like many other Democrats, I have long supported monitoring our borders 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I feel strongly that any plan for border security should include a comprehensive technology assessment, an analysis of high-altitude monitoring technologies for use with land-based systems and, importantly, full funding of the plan.

Even with the border fence, like we have in San Diego, technology is still needed to assist with monitoring and the effective placement of human resources. There are many companies in the private sector which offer all kinds of ways to enhance our ability to secure the border. Congress has passed laws increasing personnel and technology. So what we need most now is an evaluation of what it will take to secure our borders. An assessment of technology equipment and personnel would be extremely helpful to all of us in making future decisions about additional increases.

As we know, sensors and cameras are being used in many locations, including San Diego. But the Kolbe amendment represents a thoughtful approach: let us not just deploy equipment; let us ensure that the equipment works to address the gaps at our land borders.

Simply deploying equipment is not the answer. The solution must match the need. A ground surveillance program, in partnership with the remote aerial surveillance program, would go a long way towards achieving real border security.

Unfortunately, technologies have been employed on an ad hoc basis in the past and are not part of an overall technology deployment plan. The Kolbe amendment gives us realistic hope for an overall plan for smarter border security.

Technology and information-sharing is critical if our frontline personnel are to effectively secure our Nation's borders.

Importantly, I remind my colleagues that these surveillance systems still require Border Patrol agents to apprehend illegal border crossers and contraband. Border Patrol agents repeatedly tell me that they are inadequately staffed to do their job. Funding the 9/11 bill to authorize levels is a critical component of securing America's borders. If the President will not do it, Mr. Chairman, let us make sure that Congress does.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

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

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

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

I do want to close, if there are no further speakers, and acknowledge that we have important work to be done here. We have highly professional personnel at the border, and they are doing their job, but we need to provide more of them. We need to fund the border security proposals that we have been putting forward for some time. We need to be sure that we fund those.

But the other piece of that, and I am delighted that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has brought that forward, is to be certain that the most sophisticated applications of that technology are used on the border.

I speak to many companies in San Diego. I know that they have a great interest in this. They have been a part of some of these solutions in the past. Let us employ them; let us be sure that we are doing this in a comprehensive fashion.

So I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). We must move forward in this area. We can do a far better job on the border than we have done before.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Monterey for so clearly laying out the reasons that waiving all laws is a travesty of American governing principles.

I will focus on the issue driving this extreme language--completing the 3\1/2\ miles of border fencing, including the ocean section in my district.

A member stated that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants enter there and are chased all over the sensitive wetlands destroying them anyway. His facts were true 10 years ago. They are not today.

In 1993, the Border Patrol apprehended 165,000 people in this section. In 2003, the number had dropped 94 percent--to 10,000.

How many illegal entrants get past the Border Patrol today? They tell us 1,000 a year--three people per day. And that is with a fence you or I could easily walk around or through.

What should we do?

Finish building a secondary fence with the proposed level of environmental destruction.

Compromise has occurred, and plans exist for alternative road alignment. Appoint a task force to meet and reach consensus by a deadline.

One issue remains--a one-half mile wide river bed called Smuggler's Gulch--leading to internationally recognized wetlands restored at the cost of tens of millions of dollars.

The proposal lops off two adjacent mesas to dump 2 million tons of dirt into the gap to a height of 165 feet!--as high as two of the new giant airbuses stacked on top of one another!

It would cost $40 million just to move the dirt--money better spent purchasing high grade technology and funding the President's proposed increase of Border Patrol agents.

I urge you to support the Farr amendment.