Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, recently, Moroccan police and security forces have arrested and tortured peaceful protestors. For example, as recently as July 20th, reports indicate that Moroccan security forces abducted five human rights activists: Mohamed Elmoutaoikil, Noumria Brahim, Elhoucine Lidri, Larbi Massaoud, and Gaoudi Fdaili. According to the reports, all five of these people suffered psychological torture for long hours, humiliation, and threats of rape. Unfortunately, this was all done due to their opinion concerning the status of Western Sahara.

After this incident, reports indicate that both Noumria Brahim and Lhoucine Lidri were subjected to further torture including being burned, handcuffed and blindfolded, and being brutally beaten. The Moroccan officials that perpetrated these horrendous acts of torture are reported to be the Wali of Security in EI Ayun, Brahim Bensami, and the Urban Security Group Chief Officer, Ichi Abou Hassan, and Abdelhap Rabii, a security officer. When these torturers were finished, they locked their victims in the Black Jail in EI Ayun on July 23, 2005. Reports indicate they are still being held captive.

Such acts of violence and abuse against peaceful protestors and human rights activists have escalated in the last few weeks in Morocco. Other reports indicate that on July 21, 2005, a group of six Saharawi political prisoners who were arrested during a protest in EI Ayun were presented to the court of appeal in EI Ayun. The report reveals the group was tried in a show trial on June 23, 2005. They were sentenced to up to 5 years imprisonment--one of the victims of this injustice is human rights activist Bougarfa Abderrahmane. Mr. Abderrahmane is 53 years old and a father to 10 children. The others were sentenced to 3 years in prison (Hamma Achrih, Chyahou Brahim) and 2 years in prison (Mohamed Salem Essallami, Azlai Abdellah).

Sources say the Court of Appeal in EI Ayun was firmly controlled by the Moroccan security forces while the trial was taking place. Some Saharawi citizens were forbidden to enter the court room. In addition, a French journalist, Agata Andre, from the newspaper Charle Hebdo, who came to EI Ayun to attend the trial of these political prisoners was put in a separate room until the Saharawi political prisoners' trial was over. Furthermore, it is reported that the families of the five activists arrested were banned from bringing food to their relatives as well as from seeing them. No telephone contact with them is possible. Unfortunately, these reports of torture and injustice are commonplace for the Saharawi people who are denied equal rights under the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara.

On one of Secretary Condoleezza Rice's trips overseas, Secretary Rice delivered a strong message to the King of Morocco, Mohamed VI, concerning the lack of civil liberties in the kingdom of Morocco. The Spanish newspaper, La Razon, reported on June 30th that Ms. Rice expressed her concerns regarding the Moroccan regime's continuous violations of freedom of press and of expression. Amidst recent reports of escalating repression by Morocco's intelligence and security services against dissenting voices, and the repression perpetrated against Saharawls, Ms. Rice is reportedly urged the King to bring and end to the repression and allow progressive voices to be heard.

Other countries have expressed similar concerns about Morocco's human rights record regarding the Saharawis. Earlier this month in Spain, Spanish news sources reported that a Spanish delegation, composed of parliamentarians and representatives of the civil society of Aragon, was not allowed by Moroccan authorities to visit the occupied capital of Western Sahara, EI Aaiun. The delegation planned to investigate allegations of human rights abuses by Moroccan forces. One of the delegates was quoted as saying Morocco's denial of the visit was absolutely unacceptable.

Morocco has been occupying Western Sahara for decades. The United Nations Security Council has continued to uphold the right of Western Sahara to self-determination. On April 29th, 2004, the Security Council adopted Resolution No. 1541 which reaffirmed support for the Peace Plan for Self-Determination of the People of Western Sahara devised by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's Special Envoy, James Baker. Two years prior, the Security Council upheld the right to self-determination in a meeting to discuss the conflict over Western Sahara. In this 2002 meeting, the Security Council rejected other proposed options and clearly stated that the only viable resolution to this conflict must be based on the Saharawi people's right to self-determination.

There is a long history of international consensus that supports Western Sahara's right to self-determination. The International Court of Justice, issued on October 16, 1975 the following decision concerning the conflict over Western Sahara, ``The Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514(XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara, and in particular, of the principle of the self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the territory.''

I agree with many of my colleagues that Morocco is an important partner to the United States in our War on Terror and in international trade. However, the examples of human rights abuses that Moroccan officials have exhibited against the Saharawi people and the peaceful protestors is not the type of behavior we expect from our friends.

A conclusion for the conflict over Western Sahara is long overdue. Both sides of the conflict need to come together and implement the Settlement Plan elaborated by Secretary James Baker. A great step towards a peaceful resolution would be for Morocco to release all their political prisoners, including Mr. Tamek and Mrs. Haidar, to stop detaining and torturing peaceful protestors and human rights activists, and to allow freedom of thought and expression both in Morocco and in occupied Western Sahara.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues endangering our national security is not only the free flow of illegal immigrants across our border, but the policies put into place by city and local governments that provide ``sanctuary day labor hideouts'' for illegals.

These day labor hideouts or centers provide illegal people work and job training. They do so under the protection of a ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy with regard to workers' immigration status and flirt dangerously close with breaking United States labor laws. The most alarming point is that centers are paid for by U.S. taxpayers. They operate using Federal funding and enjoy a 501(c)(3) tax exempt status.

Mr. Speaker, why are we providing job training for illegals when many Americans are looking for work and job training? There are over 80 day labor centers in the United States and most of them have been open in the last 5 to 7 years, showing an alarming escalation in sanctuary hideout policies.

Mr. Speaker, we will never acquire true national security until we first secure our borders. In order to do so we must bring an end to ``sanctuary hideouts'' that provide day labor centers at the expense of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be.

Mr. Speaker, for the last few weeks I have been discussing the ongoing problem of illegal immigration into the United States; and have mentioned numerous ills of this lack of a policy and how it affects the United States and citizens here; how we are expending exorbitant amounts of money to fund the actions of illegals, and Americans pay for it.

Besides the cost of illegal immigration, the effect of our homeland security is detrimental to the safety of our country, and we need to have a plan and a plan that makes sense, has common sense, and that works.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) as much time as he wishes to consume on this issue of immigration and one of the novel ideas he has come up with to help solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), my fellow colleague, and his words on stemming the tide of the invasion, really, into the United States. Being from Texas, the gentleman knows very well the issues of border security and the problems it is causing and the fact that we have an open border policy basically in the southwest portions of the United States. So I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and the approach to getting serious about protecting the United States borders north and south.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that this Nation is a Nation of immigrants, and I certainly support legal immigration into the United States. We all take pride in our heritage, in who we are and where we came from. My ancestors on my mother's and dad's sides came from Scotland and Germany. And when we look around the Chamber on any given day, we see people from all over the world, their backgrounds from all over the world, ethnic and racial backgrounds.

Of course, our national motto, ``E Pluribus Unum, Out of Many, One,'' is what this Nation was built upon. And the many did not simply come from the mixing of cultures, but the commonly held belief they came here for a reason. They came here for freedom, they came here for liberty, and they came here, yes, for religious opportunity. But they came here also because of the rule of law.

In 1890, Ellis Island was elected the site for construction of a Federal immigration station for the Port of New York. This island was open for business on January 1 of the next year. The first person to go through Ellis Island was a 15-year-old girl, Annie Moore from Ireland, January 1, 1892. She was born in 1877 in a place called Cork, Ireland. Her parents, Matthew and Mary, had already emigrated legally to the United States, seeking to find a better life for their family.

They did not really know what to expect when they came to this America, so they left Annie and her two brothers back in Ireland. After 2 years, they established themselves and sent for their children. Annie and her brothers boarded the ship the Nevada in Queenstown, and 12 days later they arrived in New York Harbor. They were reunited with their parents at Ellis Island and they had moved, to all places, Texas. So the first Ellis Island immigrant moved to and lived in Texas.

That first day, around 700 immigrants were processed on that island, and they would be followed by almost 500,000 that very year. People who came here were screened, and some were made to return to their native lands because they did not meet certain requirements to be a legal immigrant. The peak of the years of immigration through Ellis Island were between 1892 and 1924. In 1954, Ellis Island officially closed.

Between those years, many famous people passed through the front doors of freedom to America: Albert Einstein, Bob Hope, F. Scott Fitzgerald, W. C. Fields, and Rudyard Kipling, just a few of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who came here. Those people were screened by immigrant officials to make sure they were healthy and that they could offer something to America rather than take something from America.

The people who came through Ellis Island were from all over the world. Germans, Irish, Chinese, Italians, Mexicans, Polish and Russians all passed through Ellis Island. All together, 12 million immigrants passed through the front doors of freedom during that era. One hundred million Americans today in our country, about a third, can trace their ancestry to the United States from a man, woman, or child who passed through Ellis Island.

Margaret Thatcher made the comment that no other Nation has so successfully combined people of other races and nations into a single culture, and she is right about that. The immigrants who flocked to Ellis Island and created the great melting pot that is America had one thing in common: they showed great respects for our Nation and its laws by emigrating legally. They all wanted to be Americans. They wanted to be in the land of the free and the home of the brave, and they understood that by coming here, and coming here legally, they would eventually get citizenship and become an American. They honored their own culture, but realized they had to understand this American culture in order to become a part of it.

Ronald Reagan made the comment many, many years ago about America being different than any other place in the world. He said that anybody can be an American, and people have come from all over the world to be Americans. But you can go to Italy and never be Italian; you can go to France, and you will never be French; and you can

go to Germany, and you will never be German. But anybody can come to the United States and be an American. And he is right about that.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we see times have changed. People no longer seek immigration status into the United States on a legal basis. There is a free flow of people across our border, and we now have a Nation that is so increasingly tolerant of other people's views that we fail to make sure they understand ours. Some say that we are losing our identity as a Nation because we have open borders.

In order to stem this tide, we must make certain our Nation's borders are secure and that any immigration into this country is done the right way, the fair way, and in a legal way. Everybody wants to live in the United States, but everybody cannot live in the United States; so we have to have some rules. We have to have a policy, and we have to use common sense and make sure it is fair to all. If we allow anyone from anywhere to flood into our country, we will lose the traditions of our country and eventually destroy the American Dream for all people.

Open borders cause chaos in this country. The United States is not only being invaded by illegals but these individuals are colonizing our country, and American citizens are paying for it. Americans always pay, Mr. Speaker. The price of illegal immigration is a serious problem that is costing American taxpayers millions of dollars from the areas of social services to health care to education to law enforcement. The American taxpayer is forced by our government to fund illegal immigration because the government does not protect the borders.

It is estimated that between 11 million and 14 million people are living in the United States illegally. That number rises by as much as 500,000 a year. All of these people are living in our country illegally, and many are living off the United States and the people who are citizens here and the generosity of those individuals by receiving government benefits at the expense of American taxpayers.

Although it is the Federal Government's responsibility to control immigration, the lack of enforcement by the Federal Government causes citizens of the United States to pay the high costs associated with this lack of policy. Americans have to pay those costs in education, criminal justice, health care, and social services for those who are here illegally. It is reported that 20 percent of these costs that Americans pay are attributed to the illegal people that use the system that got here illegally in the first place.

A huge cost to citizens is providing health care. America is a compassionate country, and American doctors do not turn people away from health care. We have the best health care in the world. And, of course, these doctors and these hospitals do not turn away even illegal people here. A trip to the emergency room costs money, and many illegals do not have money to pay these fees. So somebody has to pay, and Americans pay. Americans always pay. And these illegals get access to free American health care, free health care to them but not to the rest of us.

Another problem is immigrants' use of hospital emergency rooms rather than preventive medical care. The utilization rate of hospitals and clinics by illegals is more than twice the rate of the overall United States population. About half of the illegal immigrant population in the United States has no insurance or it is provided to them at taxpayers' expense. In some hospitals, as much as two-thirds of their total operating costs are uncompensated care for people who are illegal in the United States.

In these instances, the Federal Government, which is really the American citizens, the taxpayer, pays the bill; and the illegal individual is essentially given free health care. Some hospitals in urban areas have been forced to shut down because it is impossible for them to absorb the cost of health care by people who are in the system but do not pay for that system.

We have a health care cost crisis in the United States; and part of the reason for it that no one wants to mention are those people who take from the system, but who do not pay for it. If we are going to treat illegals in our hospitals, we should send those hospital bills to the countries where they come from. Why should Americans pay? We always pay. Maybe we should send the bill to those countries, those presidents who encourage their citizens to come to this Nation, especially illegally.

Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has joined me on the floor. Does the gentleman wish to make a comment?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for pointing out the situation in Arizona. The gentleman is exactly correct in what he says about enforcing the rule of law. Amnesty is a word that will bring the blood pressure up of my constituents in the Second Congressional District of Texas faster than any other trigger word, because we do not reward illegal behavior. I did not do so as a judge for 22 years. We first start by securing the border of the United States for several reasons, and we go from there. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) making those comments.

Not only is health care cost a tremendous issue because of illegal immigration, we have the cost of education. Education happens to be the largest public cost associated with illegal immigration in the United States, and it is going to have long-term consequences.

The Supreme Court ruled back in 1982 that all people, all children in the United States are provided a free public school education. It is estimated there are more than 50,000 illegal students in the United States public

schools; the Federation for Immigration Reform, total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants cost the States $12 billion. So that means it is costing taxpayers $12 billion a year to educate those individuals.

The $3.9 billion spent annually educating children of illegal immigrants in Texas could cover the shortfall that the Texas Federation for Teachers has identified for school books and pension contributions. It could even increase the salaries of teachers. And Texas is undergoing a tremendous cost problem with education in our State, trying to make sure that we do it in a fair and equitable way, but part of the problem is taxpayers are having to fund education for those people who are illegally here in the United States.

It is not just a border issue. The State of Georgia spends about $26 million to teach bilingual education. This is not fair to Americans. The problem is not only in the public school systems. Nine States, including Texas, has started rewarding illegals by giving them instate tuitions when they decide to go to a public university.

Let me explain that. These people are illegally in the United States to begin with, but yet when they get accepted to a public university, they get to go to that public university, paying instate tuition. That is about 3,700 students in the State of Texas. That is unfair to American kids. A kid from Oklahoma, if they want to go to the University of Texas, they pay out-of-State tuition which is about three times the amount of instate tuition. So we discriminate against American citizens to the behest of people here illegally. And people who come to the United States legally to get an education from all over the world, and they do so in a legal manner, they pay out-of-State tuition. They pay the same out-of-State tuition as someone from Oklahoma would pay. But if you are here illegally, nine States allow those individuals to pay instate tuition.

This ought not to be. It defies common sense. These citizens or these individuals are illegally living in the United States, they are not legal residents to begin with, and they are not eligible to work in the United States after they get that education. So the United States is paying to educate these people who, upon graduation, cannot legally work here.

This defies logic. Not only that, admission spaces in public universities are limited. Legal residents are being denied entry due to the fact that illegals are taking up spaces. These spaces are being filled by other individuals, and yet Americans pay, Americans all pay.

Further, to show how extensive this problem is, many illegals receive State and Federal grants to attend a university. What that means is they are receiving moneys to go to these universities. These grants should go to American kids, American citizens. Many times parents in this country cannot afford to send their children to a college, to a university. They seek help. Well, some of this aid is going to people who are illegally in the United States. It defies common sense.

Going further, not only mentioning health care and education, there is the criminal justice system. When I was a judge in Houston, Texas, for over 22 years, it was estimated that 20 percent of the people I saw were illegally in the United States. While they are serving time in Texas penitentiaries, Texans were paying the price. We provide those individuals a defense attorney, a court system, a trial, and incarceration, all on the American taxpayers' dollar. Americans pay, Americans always pay.

Of course, there is another problem that illegal immigration poses, and it is not just the sanctity of the American dream, but to its safety as well. While I have the sympathy and respect for those who wish to come to the United States and pull themselves up, there is the fear that there are those who hide amongst those individuals who wish to exploit American ideals and American citizens. These are people we now call terrorists. Let me give an example.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I was in Iraq. I was there for the day that Nation started its democracy. Contrary to what the skeptics and the cynics thought, that nation is on its way to a democracy. We know of the terrorists that come into that nation. Those terrorists are mainly not Iraqis. Those are individuals from all over the world, but they are not Iraqi citizens. They come to Iraq through their open borders of Syria and Iran.

Why are we so naive to think that terrorists will not come through our open borders of Canada and Mexico and do the same thing to us? It is easily conceivable for al Qaeda members to cross our borders and put our families at risk.

It is for this reason it is essential that we secure our border, because it is a national security issue. The whole world knows that America has no secure borders. We catch a few here, and we let most of them slip through. It is no secret that our enemies will continue to exploit our weakest points, and that is our borders. The tragedy of 9/ 11 has proven we are not as safe as we thought we were, and our immigration policy has to be corrected.

The hijackers took advantage of our flawed immigration policies. They had expired and counterfeit documents. Some were staying in cities and sanctuaries. We will never make our country completely safe without proper border enhancement.

Mr. Speaker, half of the people crossing our borders are from countries other than Mexico. They come from El Salvador, Brazil, Egypt, China, Russia, Poland and, yes, even France. They pose a challenge because deporting them is harder because their countries are further away. So here is what happens to those individuals that come to the United States illegally and are caught and are from some nation other than Mexico.

After arrested, they are taken to a Federal magistrate, and the Federal magistrate releases these individuals on their word that they will show up for their deportation hearing. Most do not show up. Why are we shocked about the fact that they do not return to court for their deportation hearing? This defies common sense to have a catch- and-release policy. Detention facilities are full, so they are ordered to be released on their word to return to court.

Mr. Speaker, this does not make any sense. This catch-and-release policy not only is costly, but does not work. And these individuals then carry around their summons to appear in court, and if they are stopped by some officer of the law, they show their summons, which is a pass. In other words, these individuals are released. They present and promote chaos in the United States.

Let me deal specifically with the nation of Mexico. Those coming from Mexico illegally are breaking our law. Individuals from Mexico can obtain, before they even get in the United States, fake green cards. They can go to a local Mexican flea market, and there is a growing number of individuals that will provide them counterfeit Social Security cards and a counterfeit driver's license. And the Mexican administration has even created a policy to help folks who want to come to the United States illegally.

I have a copy of this Guide for the Mexican Immigrant. I have some of the demonstrations of what is in this book for those individuals who come to the United States illegally. They can obtain this book through the administration of the Mexican Government, and it shows them what to do and what will occur if they enter the United States. Here is the cover, Guide for Coming to the United States as a Mexican Immigrant. Here on this panel I have some of the drawings that are in this book. It instructs individuals when to cross the United States border from Mexico. It also talks about the fact of what occurs when they are actually confronted by border security and what they can do about it. It talks about the issue of coyotes, those people who live and make money off the illegal importation of citizens into the United States. It talks about the appropriate time to cross into the United States. It talks about the fence over in California. It talks about the importance of crossing the river into the United States at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place at night so you cannot be seen.

This last panel here is very interesting. We see that this individual is listening to the radio. These are supposed to be Mexican illegals that have come to the United States, and actually gives them in this book a radio

channel that they can listen to in Mexico to help them come across the border or what to do once they get into the United States. Some of their questions are answered from this radio station that is broadcast from Mexico.

So it does not make sense that we help fund this process of encouraging people to come to the United States in an illegal way. There is a guide provided for them if they wish to have that, and it helps those individuals assimilate into the United States.

So we have to have a policy, Mr. Speaker, regarding those individuals who come here and make sure that we enforce the rule of law, enforce the concept of securing our borders.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his comments and also the sponsorship of his CLEAR Act. It is clear to me that the CLEAR Act ought to be the law of the land and allow police officers to do their jobs. It is silly that police officers in many States, and unfortunately Texas is one of them, that if they come across an individual that is illegally in the United States, they cannot do anything about that individual. They cannot take them to the Federal authorities and let the Federal authorities deport those people. It defies common sense that they are not allowed to do that. They certainly should have the authority under the rule of law to enforce all of the laws, the violations of the laws that they have found out about.

What my colleague from Georgia mentioned about border security regarding the issue of amnesty and the issue of terrorism is very well taken. Of course, as I mentioned with our good friend from Arizona, amnesty is one of those words that in my area of the country people do not accept. They think that is a bad idea. We tried amnesty in this country. It did not work. Now there are those who want to try it again. We need to remember history, and history has shown that giving people a free ride that were here illegally has not solved any of our immigration policies.

We have a policy in the United States in many cities called safe havens, created by sanctuary laws. These laws basically prevent police from arresting individuals that they come across who are illegally in the United States for no other reason than they have crossed paths and that they find out that they are here illegally.

Not only that, these sanctuary laws and these sanctuary hideouts prevent and prohibit police officers from, and I quote the law that first started in Los Angeles, initiating any police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of the individual. It just seems to me, and common sense would dictate, that the police should know who is in the United States legally and illegally.

These cities obviously have not heard of the war on terror. This policy has created an absurdity by allowing these individuals who have come here illegally to basically have sanctuary hideouts and prevent the police from arresting them because they are here illegally.

To further demonstrate the problem with these sanctuary hideouts, and it is also detrimental to national security, we need to mention the violent MS-13 gang that has spread across the United States. MS-13 is a gang of criminals, drug dealers from Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, and some from Mexico. They live in our prisons, those that have been captured; but they also live outside the United States, and they live in the United States. They have gotten so out of control that prospective members must commit a violent act against a community, usually a community in the United States, to become a member of the MS- 13 gang.

MS-13 and other gangs like this share two things in common: they are regularly arrested for committing crimes, they do time, they are deported and they come back to the United States. The second thing these gangs have in common is that once they are back in the United States, they are often ignored by the police because, even though the police know they are illegally here, they know that they cannot stop them for just being illegally in the United States. This occurs in many of our larger cities.

Of course, these gang members not only deal in drug trafficking but they have organized so well they know how to come into the United States. According to recent reports, MS-13 has made contacts with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. Because these gangs are so adept at evading our border patrol and so knowledgeable about sanctuary laws, al Qaeda seeks them out as guides. When it comes down to it, we cannot afford to continue sanctuary hideouts in the United States. They give safe haven to gang members, and they destroy our streets and corrupt our neighborhoods. They even allow now our worst enemies to ally with those individuals who have come here illegally.

So we really have two terrorist groups in the United States. We have a domestic terrorist group, MS-13 and their likewise gang members who deal in drug trafficking, and we have an international terrorist group that we all know about. We must now have to deal with both of those.

Mr. Speaker, there are about 800,000 local law enforcement officials in the United States, and they take a pledge to protect and serve every day, the task of enforcing our laws and making our communities safe. They watch out for our country and our kids and our families in this great land. We must allow those State and local law enforcement authorities the authority to arrest people that are here illegally and deal with them through the Federal process. The police are on the front lines every day, and they should be allies with the Federal Government in assisting to protect and serve and protect the borders.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

The gentleman from Georgia is exactly correct. I know a lot of police officers. Some rookies, some have been around, some have retired. They do it for the reason that they want to help the community protect the neighborhoods and enforce the rule of law. They, too, are frustrated about these sanctuary laws throughout the United States that basically give them a hands-off policy in dealing with illegals. They want to work with the Federal authorities. Of course they know the consequences of enforcing the law. Some of them have been threatened with being terminated if they arrest people who have been illegally in the United States for no other purpose.

I think part of the reason is exactly that. Cities and communities are afraid of those lawsuits and being tied up in court on enforcing the rule of law. How silly has this all become where cities cannot enforce the rule of law in the United States for fear of being sued by some other entity. As my colleague well knows, this needs to be cleared up so that these authorities can have the proper legal authority to arrest individuals that are here illegally and have them dealt with through Federal immigration policy. It is a very frustrating thing, and we see that occur. We hear police officers talk about that very problem on numerous occasions.

Let me mention, Mr. Speaker, a few more matters before I conclude here. This is a national security issue. It is an immigration issue. It is protecting the borders and making sure that we keep our borders safe for the Americans who live in the United States. As the gentleman from Georgia has pointed out, we only have about 2,000 officials in the whole United States that are actually seeking out people illegally in the United States once they cross the border.

One of the solutions maybe is to require a passport for people coming into the United States from Mexico and from Canada. Immigration officials have to look at hundreds of different types of documents to verify someone's legal status or who they are, their identity, before they come into the United States. Maybe we should reevaluate that policy. A passport policy would certainly not discriminate as we seem to do now on entry into the United States, and requiring individuals to have those passports to come and go from the United States would certainly help identify the true identity of these individuals.

So often people who come to the United States have already obtained a false identification. I experienced even in my time at the courthouse that individuals were sometimes using one Social Security card and there were seven or eight people using the same Social Security card to work in the United States. That Social Security card to begin with was fraudulent and a forgery. Maybe the passport idea is something that we need to evaluate and something that we certainly need to do as soon as we can to ensure the quality and safety of our borders.

I have received, as all Members of Congress receive, numerous letters from constituents about many issues. The comments I receive the most have to do with immigration and safety of the United States and national security and homeland security. It all centers around the borders. I had a senior citizen who contacts my office on a regular basis who sent me this letter, and with this last letter I will close.

However, before doing so, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I thank my friend from Iowa. We hopefully will deal with this issue as a body in September, come up with a commonsense immigration policy and plan that works. But any plan that we come up with has to start with the basic premise that we have to secure the borders and make sure that people in other nations respect the rule of law in the United States. As you mentioned and alluded to, we have people that come here legally. The process of coming here legally is taking so long, it discourages legal immigration and encourages those people to go around the rule of law and come into the United States illegally. A commonsense immigration policy that is fair to Americans, puts America first, is something that we need to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to read a short letter from a senior citizen down in east Texas. There is that east Texas wit and common sense that sometimes we do not see throughout other portions of the United States. He starts out his letter: ``There is an iceberg in the national bathtub. Illegal immigration and our current government's nonresponse to it is jeopardizing our national security, our State's security and our local security. With these 25 million illegal immigrants comes a huge problem and even larger risks.

``We have more than likely allowed several terrorists and their weapons into the country. We all but rolled out the red carpet. The social welfare costs are damning. The disease and heightened risk from an epidemic increase every day. The threats to our law and order are real as crime rates attributable to certain gangs and the human smugglers is intolerable.

``The most telling tale of neglect and dereliction of duty is the Minute Men, having to do the job the Federal Government refuses to do. I am joining these individuals with my vote. No one will ever get my vote unless this cart and horse is turned around 180 degrees in the next election cycle. I am sick of excuses and political statements and rhetoric and all of these fake hands across the border. We have got to seal the borders, get control, and fix our immigration laws and the rule of law at this time.''

Mr. Speaker, the members of our community seem to get it. I do not

know why the Federal Government does not seem to get it. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. We have to deal with this immigration issue as a body, set a plan, and enforce the law.

Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns with the base closure process currently taking place. Under the recommendations, Ellington Field in Houston, Texas, is scheduled to lose all of the F-16s and the 147th Fighter Wing. This would endanger the ability to protect southeast Texas.

The base closure criteria is based upon military and strategic importance, but it also needs to factor in homeland security risk assessments as well. The F-16s at Ellington Field protect Houston, the fourth largest city in the United States.

The city has two major airports. It has the largest medical center in the United States. It is, of course, the home of NASA. It has the Port of Houston, the second largest port in the United States, and two additional ports, Port Arthur and the Port of

Beaumont where one-third of the military cargo goes to Iraq, not to mention the petrochemical area and the energy capital of the world.

So, Mr. Speaker, I plan on introducing a resolution in Congress this week that will call on the President to factor in homeland security in the base closure process and disapprove of any recommendation unless the President is convinced that the recommendations will not adversely affect homeland security in the United States. We need to keep the F- 16s flying over Houston.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the early morning hours of May 14, 2005, two Denver police officers were working security at a restaurant when Raul Garcia Gomez cowardly shot them both in the back and fled into the darkness of the night. Detective Donald Young was killed. Detective John Bishop was also shot in the back, but he survived. Gomez snuck out of Denver and the United States and sought safety in his country of Mexico to prevent being prosecuted for first degree murder and attempted murder.

Without dealing with the issue of Mexico's reluctance to extradite their citizens who have committed murder in the United States, Gomez had already been given a get-out-of-jail-free card in Denver because of absurd policies called ``sanctuary laws.'' In Denver, Gomez had been stopped previously three times by local police for traffic offenses. Each time he presented a Mexican driver's license. Each time he had no proof of insurance, and each time he was released even though he was here illegally.

Had he been an American citizen, the fact that he had no insurance for the third time would have resulted in him being arrested and hauled off to jail. We seem to discriminate against American citizens for the benefit of illegal aliens. Anyway, the reason Gomez was released instead of deported: sanctuary laws.

They are laws that stop police from arresting and detaining illegals that are here in the United States. Therefore, law enforcement officials cannot do anything to a person they discover is illegally here in the country other than let them loose back in society.

In fact, some cities prohibit police from even inquiring into a person's legal status in the United States. So-called sanctuary laws prohibit officers from ``initiating police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of the person.''

It would seem to me, and common sense would dictate, that police should know who is in the United States illegally. Have these cities not heard of the war on terror?

This order was created in Los Angeles and has been adopted in the major cities in the United States. In these cities, if an illegal immigrant is caught for a minor violation, police cannot detain this individual for immigration violations despite the fact these people are committing a Federal offense by their presence in our country. This hands-off policy is absurd and these cities protect people who are illegally in the United States.

Unfortunately, because of lack of enforcement of immigration laws, these sanctuaries and safe havens in the United States are growing. Some U.S. cities have actually implemented policies that provide and require these safe havens for illegal people.

Mr. Speaker, in these selected hideouts, immigration laws are not enforced. These cities do not require and even some prohibit employers from reporting the illegal status to Federal officials. Creating these secret hideouts encourages illegal immigration, and Americans pay the price. Americans always pay.

Officials in Houston, Texas, recently have implemented policies restricting coordination with local police and Federal authorities regarding immigration laws. And even recently the Governor of Maine has announced an executive order forbids the State from enforcing Federal immigration laws.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem and the cities that have adopted these sanctuary hideouts undermine the security of this Nation, encourage illegal immigration and promote lawlessness. All of this at the expense of Americans.

However, some cities faced with the cost of free social services to illegals have a different approach. The latest is Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain of New Ipswich, New Hampshire. He is charging illegals with criminal trespassing and arresting them. After all, they are trespassing on American soil. Part of the problem is there are too few Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents within the interior of the United States. There are less than 2,000 people enforcing the immigration laws of people who are illegally in the United States and in the interior.

Mr. Speaker, there are more than 800,000 law enforcement officials in the United States. They take a pledge to protect and serve every day, and they are tasked with the important job of keeping our communities safe from those outlaws who terrorize the streets. They watch out for our country, our kids, our families, and our great land. Novel idea, let these 800,000 officers help capture illegals that come across each day while they are on the police beat. They should be allies with the Federal Government and assist the Federal Government in efforts to protect our country from illegal immigrants that violate our law and disrespect the borders.

Police help is essential to homeland security. Local law enforcement, those first responders are the ones that encounter illegal aliens once they have snuck into our country. These sanctuary hideouts are not the answer. There should be no sanctuary for those who violate the law.

By the way, Detective Donald Young when he was murdered was shot three times in the back and in the head. He was married with two young daughters. He was 44 years of age. Detective John Bishop, shot in the back as well, only survived because of his bullet-proof vest. If the defendant had been deported upon his arrest and not given sanctuary, these officers would not have been shot. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be.

Mr. Speaker, about half the people caught crossing our borders illegally are from some other country than Mexico. They come from places like Colombia, Nicaragua, Brazil, Egypt, Poland, the Philippines, China, Syria, Russia and even France. But the detention facilities for these illegals are full. That means many, about half, are released on their own recognizance. That means on their word they promise to return for a deportation hearing. That means they are supposed to stay here, not leave. That further means 86 percent of those individuals never return for their hearing, according to USA Today.

Are we surprised? This catch-and-release policy defies common sense. It wastes the efforts of our border agents. It does not provide consequences for illegally coming to the United States. Giving illegals a get-out-of-jail-free card is further evidence the United States must have an immigration plan that works.

Everybody wants to live in the United States but everybody cannot live in the United States. We must have a policy that promotes legal immigration and prevents illegal immigration. This catch-and-release policy must cease.

Mr. Speaker, the Sabine-Neches Riverway between Texas and Louisiana is the main shipping channel for two Texas ports in Beaumont and Port Arthur. These are energy ports and military displacement ports.

One-third of the military cargo going to and from Iraq and Afghanistan goes through this channel. The port of Beaumont has already loaded or unloaded more pieces of military cargo than any other commercial port in the United States. The port also is lined with numerous petrochemical plants and refineries. Shipments of oil, jet fuel, and liquified natural gas enter the United States through this channel. Eleven percent of the Nation's gasoline goes through this port.

But there is a problem. The Corps of Engineers does not have enough money to keep the channel dredged, so silt is creeping into the channel, ships are now having to travel the riverway without being fully loaded or they will drag bottom. To keep from dragging bottom, ships are now being loaded with one foot less amount of energy or fuel. One foot difference costs Americans $30 million a year in gasoline prices, or 3 cents a gallon more.

The channel must be dredged or our energy situation will suffer and the consumer will pay more for gasoline. The channel must be dredged for strategic reasons so that we can get our troops the military equipment they deserve.

Congress just authorized $23 billion of foreign aid. Maybe the Sabine-Neches Riverway Authority needs to apply for this foreign aid to get the more than $13 million it needs to maintain this American channel. Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, as a former criminal court judge, I always thought it was necessary and important at sentencing to let the defendant know and the victim know what society thought of the criminal behavior. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) who is here and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) also did the same thing when they sentenced individuals.

Judge William Young of the United States District Court sentenced the so-called shoe bomber who took a shoe and made a bomb out of it and got on an airplane. He sentenced this terrorist and did a similar thing, letting the defendant know what society thought of his criminal behavior.

Prior to sentencing, as all judges do, Judge Young asked Richard Reid if he had anything to say. First he admitted his guilt and then, for the record, he pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam and to the religion of Allah, and defiantly stated in open court, ``I think I will not apologize for my actions,'' and told the Court, ``I am at war with this country.''

Judge Young then delivered the following statement. ``Mr. Richard Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes on you. Court has found you guilty of all crimes committed and sentences you to first, 3 life sentences, 4, 20 year sentences stacked, which means that is 80 years, 1 30-year sentence and one $2 million.'' He also ordered restitution to the victim and to American Airlines.

Then he told the defendant the following: The life sentences are real life sentences, so I need to go no further. These are fair and just sentences. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain to you this, Mr. Reid. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co- conspirators. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. Here in court we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are just a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature in this court. If you think you are a soldier, you are not. You are just a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

You are a big fellow now but you are not that big. You are no warrior. I have known warriors. You are just a terrorist, a species of criminal that is guilty of multiple murders or attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you were first taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press was and where the TV cameras were and he said to you, you are no big deal.

Well, sir, you are no big deal. I have listened respectfully to what you have had to say and I ask you to search in your heart and ask yourself what sort of hate led you to do what you are guilty of and that you admit to being guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as far as I am concerned, in this entire record it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious to me and to our country. You hate freedom. You hate our freedom, our individual freedom, our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come as we go, to believe or not to believe. And here in this society the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea and even across the seas. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed these appeals.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that this is the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, it is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we bear any burden, pay any price to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten, but this however will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States, through his officers will have to come into the courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather and judge all individuals.

And finally, Mr. Reid, you see that flag? That is the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. It stands for justice. It always has, it always will.

Mr. Officer, that has the defendant in custody, take him away.

Judge Young, you are to be commended for such words.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Iowa yielding, and I appreciate his passion for the Constitution. The gentleman is very familiar with that sacred document and the history of the document, and the gentleman, as he does always, carries a copy of it in his pocket in case somebody wants to read it. As a former judge, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is beholden to the Constitution.

I was just counting up the years of judicial service between the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and myself. The three of us have been on the bench with over 50 years of judicial experience.

Having served in Houston for over 22 years, I tried only criminal cases. I tried about 25,000 felony cases, numerous death penalty cases, and they were all criminal cases. I say that because the PATRIOT Act deals with crime, it deals with international terrorists. As judges, we dealt with local terrorists.

The Constitution is that sacred document that we have always been sworn to uphold. I think my record, as well as these two judges' records, speaks pretty clearly that we are strong law-and-order judges, if we can use that phrase. People that were convicted in my court, they were held to a high standard and there were consequences for those actions. Some of them are serving long sentences even tonight.

But also I, too, am a very strong supporter of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. Some people think that a former law-and- order judge or a law-and-order judge is not a person who supports the Constitution. That is just not true. The first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, make us really a unique type of country because we show the worth of the individual.

The PATRIOT Act, some have been concerned about the allegations in the PATRIOT Act, whether or not it puts a dent in those Bill of Rights. I have studied the document, including the amendments tonight that were passed. I think all of those amendments and the document itself proves a point, that in this country we can have civil rights, individual liberty, and we can have security. We can have both.

History has always shown that people, all people throughout the world, were willing to give up freedom in the name of security, democratic countries and non-democratic countries. But in this country, we, through the PATRIOT Act, are continuing to show we can have both, we can have security and we can have civil liberties.

The PATRIOT Act does support that. I do not believe there has been one provision of the PATRIOT Act that has gone to court for judicial review that has been found unconstitutional. I think that is worth noting, that not one section has been found unconstitutional.

The PATRIOT Act calls for judicial review, as all of our laws should call for judicial review, and to make sure that judges throughout the land review the action of law enforcement. That is the standard of conduct in this country, it always has been and it always will be. The PATRIOT Act supports that.

So I am quite a supporter of the PATRIOT Act, especially as it has passed the House, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) says, with bipartisan support. It is something that is necessary.

There has been a lot of scare tactics that have been used and rhetoric about the PATRIOT Act, but the bottom line is the people who commit crimes against us need to fear the rule of law, need to fear the consequences for violating our safety and our freedom.

In this country we do have a lot of freedom, but yet we take a lot of precautions. Most folks tonight are doing the same thing before they went into their homes. Wherever they are in the United States, they probably locked the doors. They probably put chains on the front door and deadbolts. Some

people sleep with bars on their windows. We do that because of crime, of local criminals, outlaws and terrorists. That is a way that we have chosen to live because of the nature of criminal conduct in this country.

I think the PATRIOT Act is a statement that we are not going to live in fear, we are not going to live in terror, and we are not going to be afraid of those people who threaten us in remote portions of the world and come to try to make us continue to be imprisoned in our own homes, in our actions each day.

So I think this act goes a long way in making sure that we have freedom in this country and that we have liberty in this country and that we have security in this country, to let people know, woe be to you if you choose to commit a crime against the people of the United States, because this act gives law enforcement the ability to track those people down, hunt those people down and bring them to justice. That is really what the Constitution is about.

So I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding, and I will yield back to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, the United States tracks cattle from where they are born as calves on ranches in Wyoming, Montana, and Texas to the slaughterhouses of the Midwest, to the butcher shops of the Northeast, to our supper tables where they end up as steaks. We have even tracked a mad cow born in Canada 3 years ago to some remote barn in Washington. We have not only tracked this mad cow, but all her calves in their different locations in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we know where the cattle are, but why is it that we can track one mad cow but the Federal Government cannot seem to locate 10 to 14 million illegal people living in the United States, people who have invaded our land and disrespected our rule of

law. Someone has suggested that we give all people illegally coming across our borders a cow, and then let the Agricultural Department keep up with them and do the job the immigration people refuse to do.

Our Federal Government needs to be just as concerned about the illegal people coming into the United States as we are about some sick cow coming from Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to speak today about how to come to America. Millions of people apply for visas every year, and 90 percent of the people that legally come to this country do so through an immediate family member. If someone has a mother, father, brother, sister or spouse in the United States, they may apply for immigrant visas. They go to the United States consulate, fill out the appropriate paperwork, and then they wait, and continue to wait.

It is a long process even when they are fully eligible. According to the State Department, unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens that are in Mexico or some other foreign country that applied in 1983 are just now being considered for immigration status. Twenty years is too long to make people wait to enter the United States legally.

So while thousands of immigrants patiently wait, millions are sneaking in illegally and exploiting and disregarding American laws every day.

Madam Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention the illegal way to come to America. An illegal can walk to the local Mexican flea market, purchase a combination of fake documents. For $100 or $200, an illegal can purchase a fake green card as well as a fake Social Security card with the number picked at random. They can borrow someone else's Social Security number, and the next step is crossing the border. This does not seem to be too difficult, especially since the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Relations has made available to Mexican migrants that want to come to the United States this extensive book on how to come to America, even illegally.

The cover of this book, Guide for the Mexican Migrant. Throughout this book it shows possible scenarios that could occur to the migrant. First of all, it shows how to cross the border. You run across. If you come across an American border agent, how you handle that situation. It discusses how some places are not as safe as others to cross the border, and it talks about coyotes, those people who are bringing illegal individuals into the United States, and how to deal with those individuals. This book is extensive on how to come to America the illegal way published by the Mexican government.

Once they get into the United States, it is simple to visit their local consular, and for $26 they can purchase a matricula consular card, which is a so-called identification card issued by the Mexican consulate to prove an illegal immigrant's identity. This card has been pushed onto the United States Federal Government. The Mexican government wants the Federal Government to use these identification cards, but the Federal Government refuses to do so. So Mexican consulates are going to local communities, local governments and trying to get them and businesses to use this document.

The card resembles a driver's license and is becoming widely accepted as a form of identification at many of the Nation's banks, car dealerships, insurance companies, and even in some States they are allowing individuals to purchase or get driver's licenses based upon this document. It is so widely accepted that many companies are spending millions of dollars marketing directly to these migrant card holders.

It is a total lack of enforcement of our immigration law by the Federal Government that puts businesses in the United States in this precarious position. It seems to me to come to the United States is not that difficult. In May of this year, the Department of Homeland Security arrested 60 illegal immigrants who worked in 12 critical infrastructure sites in six States, including my home State of Texas.

Illegal immigrants were working as subcontractors at seven petrochemical refineries, three electric power plants, and a pipeline facility. They were said to have presented phony documents and some of them had entered the country after being deported once before.

Although this may sound distressing, it is not shocking considering that we require employers to accept 94 different documents to verify an employee's legal status. The United States policy makes businesses in the United States do the police work that the Federal Government ought to be doing.

There seems to be a growing amount of fraud associated with Social Security cards as well. Illegal immigrants use fake Social Security cards, they buy legitimate Social Security cards from migrants, and some of them use the same Social Security card at different times.

In 1986, the United States offered amnesty to millions of illegal individuals, and we are still suffering from that policy because it is estimated that 3 million of those immigrants received resident papers and went directly back to their homeland where they made a profit from loaning out those papers to other individuals in their homeland, and then they came to the United States and used them.

Most of this is taking place unbeknownst to the employer that unknowingly accepted the fraudulent document in the first place. Not only is this widespread use of fake documents deplorable, it is also detrimental to homeland security. Eighteen of the 19 hijackers possessed either a State-issued or counterfeit driver's license or ID, and all 19 of them had obtained some sort of Social Security number.

And the word has gotten out. Due to the widespread acceptance of the matricula consular card, other countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, and even Poland are preparing to issue similar cards for their own citizens that come to the United States illegally; and why not? Clearly we are not punishing those that continue to break the law and exploit America's compassion to other foreign citizens.

Madam Speaker, if the United States expects to solve the immigrant problem, we must come up with a plan to stop the widespread use of fraudulent documents. If we are truly, as ``Business Week'' puts it, ``embracing illegals,'' then our homeland is at risk.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

First of all, I want to say as one of the new Members of Congress and serving on the International Relations Committee, I appreciate the example that the chairman of the committee and ranking member set for all members of the International Relations Committee on how both sides of the committee can work together to achieve goals that are best for the United States. It would be my hope that other committees would work so well in getting the job done.

A brutal campaign of village burnings, destruction of rice supplies and killings by Burma's military regime has resulted in the forcible displacement of between 500,000 and 1 million innocent civilians in Eastern Burma.

Hundreds of thousands of these internal refugees that are called internally displaced peoples, or IDPs, they are persecuted for their strong commitment to democracy and their fervent belief in human rights. Regardless of what their religion may be, all of the IDP victims are being systematically hunted down by the evil military regime.

The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which passed the United States Congress overwhelmingly, found that these acts add up to ethnic cleansing. Secretary of State Rice has rightfully called Burma one of the six outposts of tyranny in the world.

My fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle have echoed this sentiment.

With all this said, virtually no humanitarian aid reaches those who have been driven from their homes in Eastern Burma. The Burmese military regime blocks all assistance. Shockingly, as a result of attacks and blocking this aid, child mortality and malnutrition rates are comparable to those recorded among the internally displaced population in the Horn of Africa.

Even worse, maternal mortality rates are well above emergency levels. Acute respiratory infections, diarrhea, malaria, anemia are serious problems in this region. This is a bona fide humanitarian crisis which we in the United States need to address.

I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the International Relations Committee for their strong and bipartisan support of this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Chairman, following the encouragement and example of the chairman of the committee to be brief, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise today to offer an amendment which would clarify congressional intent regarding the medical clearance process for people wishing to work in the Foreign Service as a Foreign Service officer at one of our 263 embassy posts throughout the world.

If someone wants to work in one of our embassies, they must have worldwide availability. This means that someone must be able to work in any region of the world without having medical conditions that would put them at risk.

Many of the areas where these Foreign Service officers are placed do not have hospitals or medical facilities to treat many types of conditions that are treated here in the United States, including Type I diabetes, severe hypertension, cancer and various psychiatric disorders. These people would have to have several emergency medical evacuations per year from the region in which they are located back to the States. Each evacuation would cost an average of about $6,000.

Hiring people that do not meet this worldwide availability requirement is irresponsible. It puts that person's life at risk and it costs several tens of thousands of dollars extra to facilitate emergency treatments.

This amendment then would clarify the conditions for worldwide availability, create a new appeals process to ensure that every applicant is given fair consideration.

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