[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 114 (Thursday, September 14, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6581-H6596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 14, 2006, I was
unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall Nos. 443 and 444. The votes I
missed included final passage of H.R. 2965, the Federal Prison
Industries Competition in Contracting Act and a vote on ordering the
previous question for providing for the consideration of H.R. 6061, the
Secure Fence Act of 2006.
Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on
rollcall vote 443 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 444.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1002,
I call up the bill (H.R. 6061) to establish operational control over
the international land and maritime borders of the United States, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1002, the
amendment printed in House Report 109-653 is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 6061
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Secure Fence Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. ACHIEVING OPERATIONAL CONTROL ON THE BORDER.
(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and
appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over
the entire international land and maritime borders of the
United States, to include the following--
(1) systematic surveillance of the international land and
maritime borders of the United States through more effective
use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial
vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage,
and cameras; and
(2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent
unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and
facilitate access to the international land and maritime
borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such
as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and
vehicle barriers.
(b) Operational Control Defined.--In this section, the term
``operational control'' means the prevention of all unlawful
entries into the United States, including entries by
terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism,
narcotics, and other contraband.
(c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made toward
achieving and maintaining operational control over the entire
international land and maritime borders of the United States
in accordance with this section.
SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS IN
BORDER AREA FROM PACIFIC OCEAN TO GULF OF
MEXICO.
Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8
U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Near San Diego,
California''; and
(2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) Security features.--
``(A) Reinforced fencing.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for least 2
layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional
physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--
``(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate,
California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate,
California, port of entry;
``(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico,
California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas,
Arizona, port of entry;
``(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New
Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;
``(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio,
Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass,
Texas, port of entry; and
``(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas,
port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.
``(B) Priority areas.--With respect to the border
described--
``(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure
that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed
along such area by May 30, 2007, and that fence construction
is completed by May 30, 2008; and
``(ii) in subparagraph (A)(v), the Secretary shall ensure
that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the
Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo,
Texas, port of entry is completed by December 31, 2008.
``(C) Exception.--If the topography of a specific area has
an elevation grade that exceeds 10 percent, the Secretary may
use other means to secure such area, including the use of
surveillance and barrier tools.''.
SEC. 4. NORTHERN BORDER STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a study on the feasibility of a state-of-the-art
barrier system along the northern international land and
maritime border of the United States and shall include in the
study--
(1) the necessity of constructing such a system;
(2) the feasibility of constructing such a system; and
(3) the economic impact implementing such a system will
have along the northern border.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that
contains the results of the study conducted under subsection
(a).
SEC. 5. EVALUATION AND REPORT RELATING TO CUSTOMS AUTHORITY
TO STOP CERTAIN FLEEING VEHICLES.
(a) Evaluation.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall--
(1) evaluate the authority of personnel of United States
Customs and Border Protection to stop vehicles that enter the
United States illegally and refuse to stop when ordered to do
so by such personnel, compare such Customs authority with the
authority of the Coast Guard to stop vessels under section
637 of title 14, United States Code, and make an assessment
as to whether such Customs authority should be expanded;
[[Page H6582]]
(2) review the equipment and technology available to United
States Customs and Border Protection personnel to stop
vehicles described in paragraph (1) and make an assessment as
to whether or not better equipment or technology is available
or should be developed; and
(3) evaluate the training provided to United States Customs
and Border Protection personnel to stop vehicles described in
paragraph (1).
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that
contains the results of the evaluation conducted under
subsection (a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6061, the Secure
Fence Act of 2006.
Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress return to their districts, as
Members of Congress speak with the American people, it is obvious there
is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal
immigration.
{time} 1345
This is an issue which is absolutely essential if we are to gain the
confidence of the American people, if we are going to show to the
American people that we can perform the most basic obligation of any
government, and that is to secure the Nation's borders.
Now, we passed very comprehensive legislation in December of last
year, H.R. 4437, and I was a strong advocate and cosponsor of that,
along with Chairman Sensenbrenner, but the reality is that legislation
is right now bogged down. What we have to do is we have to prove to the
American people and also we have to make substantial progress in
combating illegal immigration.
One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the United
States Senate and the Congress is on the issue of building a secure
fence. So rather than wait, and wait for God knows how long until
comprehensive legislation is enacted, there is no reason whatsoever why
we should not move forward on targeted legislation which is effective
and meaningful. We have to bridge this disconnect between the American
people and its government, between the American people and the elite,
and we have to show we are responsive.
Now, the legislation today incorporates very much what was already
passed by the House with significant Democratic votes back in December.
It provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing. It also
mandates that the Department of Homeland Security achieve and maintain
operational control over the entire border through a virtual fence,
deploying cameras, ground sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, integrated
surveillance technology, and it also requires the Department of
Homeland Security to provide the necessary authority to border
personnel to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the authority which
is already held by the United States Coast Guard for maritime vessels.
We also realize there is concern at the northern border, and I want
to especially thank my colleague from New York (Congressman Reynolds)
for his efforts in homeland security, particularly on the northern
border. With his help, we were able to enhance the Secure Fence Act to
ensure that appropriate technology and infrastructure are being
considered and that border security efforts are implemented in a manner
that does not stop or deny commerce.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue where the American people are crying
out for help. They are crying out for us to take meaningful action.
There is, to me, no reason why, and I am trying to anticipate arguments
coming against it, basically saying we need comprehensive legislation,
and that is a debate we can have. We passed comprehensive legislation
in December. But the fact is just because we cannot do everything today
doesn't mean that we should do nothing.
So I am saying let us do something very, very positive. Let us pass
this legislation, which will build a secure fence, which will build a
virtual fence, and would also give the border personnel the assistance
and the power that they need.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today the House continues its efforts to be known as the
``do-nothing Congress'' by voting on a bill that has already been voted
on before. In December, we voted on this fence issue as part of the
border legislation offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. King. Then, the
Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive bill, the McCain-Bush bill,
and House Republicans had the opportunity to work with the Senate on a
bill that would be voted on and sent to the President to be made into
law, but the Republicans decided to do nothing.
Then they decided rather than doing nothing they would waste
taxpayers' dollars to hold hearings over the summer, hearings that
showed that a lot of their ideas, such as the very fence being
discussed today, weren't so good. Rather than listening to the American
people and creating laws that actually do something, the Republicans
have decided to spend the next 2 weeks voting on things we have already
voted on.
Mr. Speaker, voting on a fence today, especially when it is already
part of legislation to be moved, isn't going to solve our border
security woes. Indeed, voting on a fence without allocating funds to
pay for it is just another example of Republican efforts to sell
security on the cheap to the American people.
I have seen estimates that just to build the fence is going to cost
us at least $7 billion. Where is the money coming from to pay for it? I
am from rural Mississippi, and I know that when you build a fence you
have to maintain it, mend it, and fix it. How much is it going to cost
to maintain this 700-mile fence? Who is going to do it? This fence is
starting to feel like the bridge to nowhere that Congress once
considered.
Mr. Speaker, the British statesman Edmund Burke once said ``All that
is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough
good men to do nothing.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Congress to
stop being the ``do-nothing Congress.'' It is time for us to take a
real stand against the forces of evil and move forward with existing
legislation to secure our borders. Instead of spinning our wheels
passing the same bill over and over again, let us move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6061.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would just make several
references, one to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, who
is ranking member and does such an outstanding job on the Homeland
Security Committee, that I don't think it is ever a waste of taxpayer
dollars to go out and hold hearings and listen to what the American
people have to say. Sometimes it is good to get away from just reading
editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post and actually
hear what real people have to say.
Secondly, if we are going to show that we are genuinely against doing
nothing, then let's do something and pass legislation which we know the
overwhelming majority of the American people want, and that is to build
this fence.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
legislation, and listened to the assessment offered by my good friend
from Mississippi. Yes, it is the political season. Yes, the description
is one that is offered almost reflexively, to which we could answer
with I believe the fairer characterization of ``obstructionism.''
[[Page H6583]]
And, really, perhaps that is a theme that should be pursued with
reference to our borders. The graffiti is strewn on the wall at our
international border in Nogales. ``Borders are scars upon the earth,''
it reads. No, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, borders are not scars upon
the earth. They are reasonable and necessary lines of political
demarcation between nation states to ensure the sovereignty and
security of those nation states in the post-9/11 world.
It is absolutely necessary that we move to secure our borders. And as
the poet wrote, ``good fences make good neighbors.'' Because, Mr.
Speaker, this far exceeds the notion of a fence and mere physical, not
to mention debate obstruction. This brings to bear technology necessary
to secure the border.
Now, much has been said about process already, and it will no doubt
continue. But I think it is the duty of the people's House to time and
again take this case to the other body on this Hill and to make clear
to the American people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents,
Libertarians, and vegetarians, that as Americans we understand this
basic truth: When you have got a hole in your roof, the first thing you
do is patch the hole.
Let us move forward with an effective fence. Support this
legislation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6061,
entitled the Secure Fence Act. This bill is almost the same bad
legislation that was brought before us in the House this summer, but it
is even worse because it contains no funding. It ignores real
enforcement measures, like hiring more Border Patrol personnel, and
instead builds a Berlin Wall on our southern border.
I was born and raised in south Texas on the Texas-Mexico border. We
who live and work along the border are acutely aware that the
immigration system is broken and that a complete overhaul is required
to restore any semblance of order.
So long as employers need workers in this country, and while our
immigration systems impede rather than facilitate timely access of
willing workers to those opportunities, undocumented immigration will
never be controlled. Walls, barriers, and military patrols will only
force those immigrants to utilize ever more dangerous routes and
increase the number of people who die in search of an opportunity to
feed and clothe their families.
The answer to this issue is comprehensive immigration reform. Fix
immigration systems and you are assured better border security. Trade
is the lifeblood of the Mexico-U.S. border communities and of this
Nation. In the Rio Grande Valley, thousands of people cross back and
forth across the border daily to shop, to work, to get medical care,
and to go to school. Fences will stifle that trade and destroy the
economic gains border communities have made. The McAllen Chamber of
Commerce says, and I quote, ``This bill is a 19th century solution to a
21st century problem. It is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.''
I participated in the sham hearings in Laredo, Texas, in August of
2006 that only allowed testimony from one side of the issue and are
being used to justify this bill. Instead of wasting time with this
legislation, this House should be participating in a conference with
the Senate on legislation that has already passed.
The McAllen Hispanic Chamber of Commerce stands on the feelings that
``we don't need more fencing, we need a real solution. We need a bill
that will protect our borders without a fence and consider possible
solutions temporarily, legalizing undocumented people who are currently
working in the United States, with certain homeland security provisions
and allowing future workers to enter legally, reunite families, and
provide worker protections.''
I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation, H.R. 6061,
named the Secure Fence Act.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my good friend
from Texas that just a 14-mile fence in San Diego has brought about a
significant decrease in crime. And also one of the reasons why we
believe this fence is essential is for the humanitarian reason of not
allowing so many people to die in the desert the way they do today
because there is no fence.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this effort, and
I want to congratulate the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee,
Mr. King, for his very hard work on this, and all my colleagues that
have been involved.
I hate the idea of our having to put up a fence. The fact of the
matter is we have no choice. We have no choice because this week, as we
marked the fifth anniversary of September 11, we are in the midst of a
global war on terror. We face the threat of someone who would like to
do us in coming across our border.
We know that the fence is not the panacea. But the fact of the matter
is the fence is essential, and every shred of empirical evidence that
we have so far is that it has been helpful in dealing with the
challenge that we have.
Chairman King just mentioned the 14-mile border fence. I have had the
privilege of working with our colleague, Mr. Hunter, and before that
our former colleague, Doug Ose, from Sacramento, who worked hard on our
effort to complete that 14-mile fence.
{time} 1400
The reason we have to have that fence in that area is that the
populations on both sides of the border are very, very heavy, and so it
makes it easy for someone to assimilate into society once they get
across that border; and having a fence, and a double fence, is one way
in these heavily populated areas to focus attention on this.
We have a 1,973-mile border between the United States and Mexico. It
extends from the Pacific Ocean all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. No
one is advocating that we fence the entire border. We have 21st century
technology that is going to allow us to utilize motion detectors,
unmanned aerial vehicles, and a host of other things that allow us to
deal with areas that don't have heavy concentrations of populated
areas, number one; and, number two, areas known to be utilized for
smuggling.
This measure is the right thing for us to do. The American people
know we can secure our borders. I believe that this effort is a very
important one in that quest, and I am proud to be strongly supportive
of it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in response to my chairman,
I have heard a fence called a lot of things, but hearing it called a
``humanitarian gesture'' is something very new. I guess you learn
something every time you are on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor
today disappointed that we once again are debating a bill that will not
be a real solution to our Nation's border security and to our
immigration problem.
This summer the Republican leadership held hearings all around the
country under the pretense of learning about what was needed to secure
our borders. The various hearings received extensive testimony, but one
of the things they told us was that fencing alone is not an adequate
solution.
The simple fact is that fences are not the silver-bullet solution
that the Republicans are painting them to be. It will not add more
Border Patrol agents, who are the ones that do the real work at
securing our border. And it will not add more detention space for
people who are apprehended. There are no more DAs, no more judges, it
won't process these people.
I am also concerned that the bill does nothing to secure the northern
border. Just think about it, when you plug one place, people come in
through other places: our coasts, our airports, our northern border.
This summer I attended a hearing on the Washington State-Canadian
border, and it was very clear that the northern border has major
problems, considerable challenges. And what does this bill do to help
the northern border? They are going to do a study. I am going to tell
you something, the people who were before our committee did not ask for
a study. They asked for more Border Patrol agents. They asked for help
[[Page H6584]]
from unmanned vehicles. They didn't ask for a study.
The fence proposed today is not cost effective. A low-ball estimate
based on an estimate from the Department of Homeland Security says $9
million per mile. So it would cost almost $7 billion to build the 730-
mile fence. In contrast, with just $360 million, we could hire, train
and equip the 2,000 Border Patrol agents that would make it operational
and secure at the borders, the ones that we said we were going to hire
in the 9/11 act.
So today we are not discussing a comprehensive bill like the
substitute drafted by my colleague, Mr. Thompson, the ranking member of
the Homeland Security Committee, the one that gives technology,
personnel, equipment to monitor and secure every mile of the border 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership
would not allow an up-or-down vote on that amendment.
I am a strong supporter of border security, and today, today I wish
we were voting on a strong border security bill. I want to work with my
colleague on the other side of the aisle, but I cannot support this
bill. It will cost billions of dollars, take many years to implement,
and it still won't solve our border security problem.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend from
California, all of us agree no one provision is going to solve illegal
immigration, but this is a significant provision going forward.
In addition, this year's appropriation bill provides for 1,200 new
Border Patrol agents which will bring us up to 14,580, an increase of
over 80 percent since September 11, 2001, and over 1,200 ICE officers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goode).
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I salute the gentleman from New York and his
committee for their efforts on the fence bill.
As stated previously, I agree that the fence is not the total
solution. In fact, I would like to see more than 700 miles of fence
along our southern border, but 700 miles of fence is a start. I would
also like to see a firm no-amnesty policy ever for those illegally in
the country. That is not part of this bill. But this bill is a
substantial and correct step in the right direction.
The invasion into this country is from south of the border primarily.
That is why we need the fence along the southern border first, and we
will study the situation along the northern border.
Cost: $7 billion is a small fraction of the cost that illegal
immigration imposes upon the taxpayers of the United States and the
taxpayers of the various States of this country. It costs in excess of
$70 billion per year.
Let's take this very firm, very positive step and I urge everyone to
support the King legislation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr.
Grijalva, the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-
called Secure Fence Act, H.R. 6061. This bill could require the
Department of Homeland Security to construct a wall across the entire
Arizona border with Mexico. The House has already considered and passed
this legislation, but since the majorities of both bodies in Congress
have been unable to come to an agreement on immigration reform, the
majority here wants to appear that we are accomplishing something as we
are nearing election. But this is a sham.
Because of a failure of leadership to comprehensively address
immigration in a sensible, humane way, we see before us a bill, to
quote a majority member of the other body, that is a 19th century
solution to a 20th century problem.
Instead of using our abilities as representatives of the American
people who want to see a comprehensive solution to this problem, this
is merely an attempt to sweep the serious root causes of immigration
under the table and appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Building a wall between us and Mexico will not work. Not only will it
not keep people from crossing illegally, it will be a budget-busting
endeavor. I note that this bill contains no specific authorization of
funds for this wall which will run into the billions.
In the deserts of the Southwest, the fragile and unique national
treasures that we have there are bearing the brunt of an immigration
policy that has failed. Earlier this year, the Interior Subcommittee of
the Appropriations Committee held a hearing on immigration's impact on
borderlands. Professional land managers testified at this hearing and
expressed serious skepticism about the negative impacts to the
environment and wildlife that could result from building walls or
fences on the border.
It saddens me that instead of working hard to address the border
question, the majority continues to push a measure that has little
chance of being signed into law. Nowhere in this bill do we see
discussion of larger issues at hand that are in dire need of solutions.
The American people will see through this. They know it is nothing
more than election year politics. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R.
6061.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill before
us because we need to act immediately to seal our borders and protect
the American people.
My office is full of bricks, bricks mailed to me by my constituents,
and to the offices of many of my colleagues, with urgent pleas to act
to secure our borders. These bricks are more than a strong message from
our constituents. They represent the passionate pleas of a country that
knows we are losing the battle at our border and the demands of a
Nation that understands we will never be secure until we have control
over who is entering our country.
The Secure Fence Act will take the necessary steps to give our Border
Patrol agents the tools they need to regain control of our borders so
they can protect our country.
This legislation authorizes additional fencing as well as state-of-
the-art technology and surveillance equipment to help us regain control
of our borders.
The Secure Fence Act tells the American people we are serious about
getting control of our borders, stopping illegal immigration and
securing our country.
It is appropriate legislation. It will help get the job done, and I
urge its passage.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear some of the
folks on the other side of the aisle, especially Members from Arizona
and New Mexico, who come here and say this is not a good idea, we
shouldn't be moving ahead with it and it won't solve any problems.
It is their States, it is the Governor of the State of Arizona and
the Governor of the State of New Mexico who have declared states of
emergency in those two States. Something has to be done; that is what
they are telling us. These are Democrat Governors in States where they
have enormous problems, and they are saying we have an emergency. This
is one way to try to address it. It is just one, but it is one way to
do so. It is an important step that we take.
In terms of effectiveness, we have a model. On our southern border
today, we have a chunk of fence about 14 miles long in the San Diego
area, and it has worked. It has worked well. It is hard to find anyone
on either side of the border at that location that wants that fence
taken down because it has improved life.
This is a good step to take, and I commend my colleagues for bringing
it forward.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman and the
leadership for their continued astute work on this most important
matter.
On December 16 of last year, the House responsibly debated and passed
H.R. 4437. Part of that bill was an amendment that I authored that is
now
[[Page H6585]]
incorporated into section 2 of this bill. It is the accountability
portion. It is the oversight portion. And accountability is truly the
key.
We are in this position today because of benign neglect from
Washington. In 1986, another bill was passed that promised border
security. That was not done, and the American people lost trust in
Washington on this issue.
In order to restore that trust, we must first gain operational
control. Operational control of the border is the imperative, and
section 2 is what accomplishes that. It will ensure that the American
people will know with certainty that that task has been accomplished.
My friends on the other side of the aisle say a fence is not the only
answer, and this bill recognizes that. Look at section 2; it states
that Homeland Security shall take all actions necessary and appropriate
to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire
international land and maritime borders of the United States, including
systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders
and physical infrastructure.
This is not just a fence bill, Mr. Speaker. It is also not just a
Republican issue, it is not a Democrat issue; it is an American issue.
I encourage and challenge my friends and colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support this important measure that all of our
constituents demand.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
In reference to what the last speaker said, that this is not a fence
bill, looking at the title, it is the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
{time} 1415
Undoubtedly, there is some misunderstanding. The other point I would
like to raise, Mr. Speaker, we have already voted on this matter. It is
already on the books, been sent to the Senate, and basically it is
there. We could be spending significant time doing other items like
adding Border Patrol agents to a bill, technology, other equipment that
we already know that we need. But this unfunded mandate in terms of
this fence is unfortunate, because we are just doing and repeating what
we have already done in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time both
sides have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from New York
has 15\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Mississippi has 18.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the real
gentleman from Iowa and the real Mr. King.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from New York, and I am
pleased to be called a real gentleman here on the floor of Congress. I
am very pleased to be standing here to endorse the King bill, and the
chairman's work is exemplary.
I also endorse the definition in here of operational control of this
border. It is a right-on-the-spot definition that we need to adhere to
across this country. Last August 22 I called for a fence, August 22,
2005. The news media lambasted me for a radical idea.
Since that time, this House has voted to pass a fence, and the Senate
has voted twice to pass a fence. It has now become bipartisan, and the
White House understands the need for a physical barrier on the border.
Two thousand miles, and we are spending $8 billion a mile to watch the
border. That is $4 million a mile, $8 billion a year; $4 million a
mile, and $2 million will build a fence and a wall. Then we can have an
effective operational control that meets this definition.
So we need to have a fence and a wall on this border, and we are also
watching today as 4 million illegals cross this border a year, that's
11,000 a night. Santa Ana's army was 6,000 strong. Twice that number
every night is coming into America. You can't sit on the border in the
dark like I have and listen to that infiltration and believe that you
can do it with something called virtual. It has got to be a physical
barrier.
There are $65 billion of illegal drugs pushing on that wall. We can
shut all of that off and save America drug addicts at the same time.
I support the bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Could I inquire of my friend from Mississippi
if he intends to use all his time with more speakers?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for two more
speakers.
Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Chairman King's work on this bill
showing that it is a national security issue and not just a problem
that we have in the Southwest. Many in this Congress have been
following what they believe to be the absurd anti-American prosecution
of two Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were
doing their jobs to protect the U.S. border and protect drugs from
entering America.
Instead they were improperly put on trial for what the U.S. Attorney
who prosecuted this case said was the unlawful pursuit of an illegal
invader into this Nation who was bringing 800 pounds of dope into this
country.
One part of the bill that I wish to highlight is section 5. This
portion directs the Border Patrol to make clear the policy on pursuit
and whether the authority should even be expanded. The Border Patrol
lists among its objectives to detect, apprehend and deter drug
smugglers. Our Border Patrol agents in the field need a clear, all-
inclusive pursuit policy to show that we are serious about defending
the border.
This bill will show our Border Patrol agents we are more concerned
about them and border security than we are about drug smugglers.
Anything less makes our Border Patrol nothing more than highly
specialized and trained Wal-Mart greeters.
I urge adoption of this bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from New York for his
dedication to our Nation's security and border security, which is a
huge part of that.
Mr. Speaker, after our Congress on the Road border security hearings,
I would have constituents who would say tell me what you learned. What
we learned is this, is that every town is a border town and every State
is a border State, regardless of where it sits in this Nation. We also
learned that what Americans want is to secure the border first.
That is their priority, and they are in hopes that we are going to
join them and work with them. We know it has been the House's priority,
and we are hoping that the administration and the Senate will join us
in this effort.
We have also learned that what America wants to see is some type of
border wall or fence or technology that is going to get results and
that will end illegal entry into this country, whether it is of drugs,
whether it is of individuals. They want the illegal entry to end.
The Secure Fence Act is a result of our hearings. We have heard. We
are heeding what we have heard, and we know this is not the be all and
end all, but it is one part of this important process. We get it. We
hear the American people. We hear the border guards, and we also hear
American law enforcement officers at the local and State level.
We are committed to doing the right thing. As I said, I hope that the
President and Senate will join us in supporting these endeavors. We
welcome bipartisan support on this issue. For those who have sat back
and have avoided the issue or refused to take a position, now is the
appropriate time for them to basically get off the fence and join us in
supporting this. It is responsible, and, indeed, it is an issue of
national security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, we have two speakers en
route, one we just talked to, who assures us he will be here shortly.
Mr. Chairman, do you have someone else?
Mr. KING of New York. Actually, we have a pinch hitter. I yield 1\1/
2\ minutes
[[Page H6586]]
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, Iraqis have been caught trying to
infiltrate our southern border. Iranians have been detained trying to
cross our southern border, Jordanians and people from countries where
al Qaeda recruits.
Border security is national security, and yet the Democrats are now
holding hostage border security for their amnesty plan. This is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we have the means to control our border, but do the
Democrats have the will?
When they talk about immigration, the question is not yes or no, the
question is illegal versus legal. That is the question. We know that a
fence does not solve the entirety of the problem, but if you talk to
our Border Patrol, as I have, if you have talked to our border
sheriffs, as I have, you will note that strategically placed fences and
walls, particularly where these human smugglers will gather, is a very
important part of a comprehensive strategy to control our border and
helping stem the tide of illegal entry.
We know that many people are coming here for the right reasons, but
many people are also coming for the wrong reasons. Unbridled, illegal
immigration threatens our national security, our border security and
the rule of law. We should approve this legislation and take that first
bold step in helping secure our borders.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, putting a fence up really
doesn't stop people if you don't put the support system around it. So I
would encourage my colleagues at some point to look at comprehensive
border security and that approach, as well as developing a
comprehensive border security plan. Just because somebody happens to be
Jordanian or Iranian or what have you does not make them illegal, and I
think what we have to do is do it the right way. If you have a fence
and don't have staff to support it, you still haven't done much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman greatly.
Mr. Speaker, like Humpty-Dumpty atop a great wall, the Republican
leadership's false proposal that we consider today is really on the
edge of a great fall.
This is not so much about broken immigration policies, as it is about
a House leadership that is desperately trying to cling to power and
realizing that it is about to take a great fall. A great fall because,
in part, on immigration, as with so many other issues, it has had years
to act, and years to respond. Like this Administration, it has failed
to secure our borders or find a meaningful way to deal with
immigration.
So today, as part of the campaign of fear and hate that it has
promoted over the recess with hearings across America, this bill is
designed to erect a fence along the entire border of Texas, including
all of the area that I represent along the Rio Grande River between
Texas and Mexico.
With no funding accompanying the bill, it is really less of a
fortification than a fairy tale, and it is also results from public
concerns on this issue that arise from the failure of the
Administration to fund the 2,000 Border Patrol agents that we proposed
in 2004 when it ended up providing only 210.
It is similar in concern to the raid that President Bush and his
Administration made on our Texas Border Patrol agents, when it moved
them to Arizona, in what even my Republican colleagues condemned as an
``outrage.'' They cannot put Humpty-Dumpty together again because
reality does not comport with their rhetoric.
The solution to our problems with immigration will take more than
concrete. You cannot build a wall high enough or long enough. You
cannot pour in the billions and billions of dollars that they propose
over the next decade for this wall, if it were ever funded, to keep
people who are hungry from coming to this country.
What we need is a comprehensive approach that includes securing our
borders, but at the same time realizes that much of our American
industry and agriculture depends on immigrant labor. We need a way to
encourage that labor to enter the country in a legal, not illegal
fashion. If you do nothing but erect a false barrier and fail to
include at the same time a legal way for labor to enter this country to
seek a better life and to help us have a better life, one is left with
a tremendous false sense of security for a wall that didn't work in
Berlin, didn't work around Hong Kong, and hasn't worked in many other
areas and is not the kind of comprehensive solution we need.
History and Humpty-Dumpty teach us that great walls are not the
answer. What we need today is not a facade like that which is being
proposed, we need leadership and real action.
Any high school student who has completed, even at the C level, a
civics course at Johnson High School or Crockett or Bowie High School
in Austin, Texas, knows that when the House passes one bill and the
Senate passes another bill, both Republican bodies, with the President
seeming to timidly favor the Senate bill, that the solution isn't to go
around and have a round of show hearings and piecemeal a measure. One
must cause the two bodies to come together and try to achieve a
reasonable consensus.
Instead, House Republicans have done everything that they possibly
can to stymie consensus and stymie a comprehensive solution. Instead,
they bring us the false hope of a giant and costly wall that will not
solve this problem. We need the President and a Congress who support
real security and who are willing to stake some of their future on
that, not some kind of barbed-wire smokescreen.
The citizens I represent who live on the southern edge of the country
live in the very area that this wall would be built. Those who I
represent that live hundreds of miles away are recognizing that we
shouldn't be punished by posturing politicians high on the prospects of
stirring up fear thousands of miles away with people who have never
been to our Texas border.
Rather our entire country, all of our families, will be safer if we
have a plan for enhancing border security enforcement, as well as for
overhauling our immigration system. One of the biggest wrongs committed
in this round of hearings, this dog and pony show that House
Republicans have taken around the country, is to make an attempt to
confuse the violence associated with drug cartels along our border with
immigrants coming here seeking a better future, the same kinds of
immigrants that came here in previous centuries looking for a better
life in America. The two are separate, except to the extent that
enforcement policy only drives some seeking a better life to some of
the gangs that are also responsible for drug violence.
Similarly, the attempt to confuse our people and make them think that
Osama bin Laden is headed north in a sombrero and that we face a great
invasion of terrorists across the Rio Grande is also appealing to fear
and the unknown rather than appealing to the reality of how we secure
our borders.
{time} 1430
Many Americans have a legitimate concern for securing our borders. In
some areas, it may be that limited use of walls and certainly much
broader use of our Border Patrol will provide part of that solution.
But without the comprehensive approach that we so desperately need, we
will not have solved the problem of immigration, of its contribution to
our economy, and of the concerns it raises for some of our border
communities.
I salute the gentleman from Mississippi for his leadership on this
matter, and I believe that next year, when we have a more responsive
Congress that cares about placing a priority on the real problems that
affect American families, we may be able to finally move toward a
comprehensive immigration approach, and not just a series of campaign
speeches by people who want to distort and who want to shift the focus
of debate from the failures that they have been responsible for these
many years in the House of Representatives.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to listen as carefully as I can to
the debate, and the only real argument that I hear that really make any
sense is that building a fence is not the only answer. I think all of
us on this side agree. But we also believe it is a very
[[Page H6587]]
essential part of the answer, a significant step; and the fact that,
again I repeat, that we can't do everything, does not mean we should do
nothing. That is why it is, I believe, essential to go forward with the
legislation today, since there is broad support for it; both here in
the House and in the Senate, as well, there is support for it, and also
among the American people.
Also, as far as the references made to terrorists coming across the
southern border, there is no doubt that there have been captured al
Qaeda documents which indicate the desire of al Qaeda to bring people
across the southern border.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 2005, the House of Representatives
passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal
Immigration Control Act of 2005, by a vote of 239-182. Included in the
final version of that bill was an amendment that was offered by Mr.
Hunter, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Goode, Mr. Royce and myself to construct a
high-tech security fence along the most populated and in-need parts of
our border.
This past August, I had the opportunity to visit the border fence in
San Diego, California, and I can vouch for its effectiveness. I agree
that it may not be cost effective or even necessary to line our whole
northern and southern borders with a security fence, but in the most
populated areas where there is not much room separating two cities,
like Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, California, a secure border fence
would be a valuable investment because it provides our Border Patrol
the time necessary to apprehend smugglers and others crossing the
border illegally.
I commend Chairman King and the House leadership for revisiting this
issue, because it is the most basic and effective means for securing
our border, in this Congress. Like locking the door to your house
before turning on the alarm, it only makes sense to begin enforcement
of our borders with physical barriers.
Mr. Speaker, we need to stop the fluidness of our borders before we
consider any other immigration idea. In the words of a doctor, we need
to stop the bleeding before we can stitch the wound. Constructing
barriers on our borders is a critical first step toward curing this
patient.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say at this
time that there is bipartisan opposition to this bill. I would like to
yield 3 minutes to a border State Representative, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank the gentleman from New York for his consideration as well.
Mr. Chairman, here we are again. Nine months ago, we were on this
floor passing half measures to deal with the problem. Now we are back
to dealing with it in quarter measures. We don't need these kinds of
approaches. We know what the problems are. We don't need to have the
faux hearings all over the country that we had this summer to tell us
what the problems are.
The time has come to reject these kinds of partial measures, more of
the same that we have been doing, and get at the root of the problem.
And the root of the problem, as we well know, is the job magnet that
exists in this country, that pulls migrants in, that makes them willing
to do the jobs that most Americans are not willing to do, hard, back-
breaking work out in the hot sun.
Fences are not going to stop these people from coming. They are
determined to come here. They have been coming against all odds, and
they are going to continue to come.
Furthermore, half of all the people who are in this country illegally
came here on a legal visa. This doesn't do anything to deal with that,
it doesn't do anything to deal with the people who come from other than
across our southern border, and it doesn't really deal with that.
We need to have a comprehensive fix to the problem. I know people are
tired of hearing that word, ``comprehensive,'' but tell me a better
word to describe something that deals with all of the parts of the
problem and that that is what we don't have here. Not just fencing, not
just sensors, not just UAVs. Those are important. Those are part of the
problem. And I have no difficulty with the idea of a fence, but we need
to have it as something more than just on its own. By itself, this
falls very short.
We have got to have a guest worker program. We have got to have a
realistic, honest assessment and solution to the 12 million people who
are in this country now in an undocumented status. Unless we do that,
we only exacerbate the problem.
Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence that any terrorist has come across
our southern border. None. And that was testified to time and again
this summer. So if we are really concerned about terrorists, we ought
to be much more concerned about our northern border, where there are
many more miles of unprotected border without camera sensors, without
fencing. And it is also a country where we know there are terrorist
cells that exist there. So we know that the problem exists up there.
So what are we really debating here? We are really not debating
anything that is of substance. This is a feel-good piece of
legislation. We have sent the bill to the Senate. They have sent the
bill back to us. This is simply a rerun of what we have done before.
Chairman King said a moment ago that we can't do everything, we ought
to do something. Well, sometimes the half measures are actually things
that make things worse.
What we need to do, and we know that we can get more than this, all
we have to do is be willing to walk 100 yards across the Capitol to the
other side and negotiate, to start talking with them about a
comprehensive solution, something that will secure our borders once and
for all.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we reject this piecemeal, this rerun
bill, and do what is right for the American people. Let's go to
conference with the Senate.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Secure Fence Act.
House Republicans have been committed to taking action which will
strengthen border security now. I have long been committed to this
issue. The people of the Fifth District of North Carolina and the
people of this country want us to fulfill our constitutional duty to
secure our borders.
H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act, will address our immediate need to
secure our borders. We must address our vulnerability and strengthen
our operational controls on our borders through more personnel, greater
state-of-the-art technology and surveillance, and additional physical
barriers.
We know there is more that needs to be done to deal with the illegal
alien issue, but this is definitely the right first step. I urge my
colleagues to vote in support of the Secure Fence Act.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, every single Member of this House understands that we
must secure our Nation's borders. Our Nation is at war, and those who
seek to harm our homeland and our people will attempt to exploit our
national security vulnerabilities. There is no question, to protect our
country, we must know who is in our country.
But rather than work with Democrats to achieve this consensus
national security objective, the House Republican majority today is
engaging in a cynical charade, I suggest.
This is not a feel-good measure. I agree with most of what my friend
from Arizona had to say. This is not a feel-good measure; this is a
political measure. This is a political measure, because Americans are
rightfully concerned about their borders being secure. They were
concerned about that in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and, yes every
day up until today. But they know our borders are not secure.
Now, we haven't been in charge of the administration, the Congress or
the Senate. Prior to that, if you look at the record, we were more
secure at the
[[Page H6588]]
borders. If you look at the record, honestly, you will see in terms of
the numbers of people coming in, the numbers of people being stopped,
the numbers of fines being levied on employers, there was more, not
less, in the Clinton administration than there is in the Bush
administration.
This is, I suggest to you, to score political points that are going
to be, not could be, are going to be demagogued in 30-second ads. I
guarantee you they will be used in ads.
The legislation before us solely contains the border fence provisions
that were added to the Sensenbrenner immigration reform bill that
passed this House last December with overwhelming Republican support.
This is what I call to some degree the ``regurgitation process'' that
we are in so much. We pass a bill, it doesn't go anywhere in the
Senate; we pass it again, it doesn't go anywhere in the Senate; we pass
it again. Why do we do so? To appeal to the fears and the passions of
our people.
Let me just say, building a fence along 700 miles of our southern
border is no panacea to our very real national concerns that must be
addressed. In my view, it is a political grandstand play that wastes
precious time.
Here, in fact, is what the President of the United States, President
Bush, said, in May regarding the issue of immigration reform and border
security, exactly what the gentleman from Arizona, the Republican
chairman of one of our subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee.
President Bush said, ``An immigration reform bill needs to be
comprehensive because all elements of this problem must be addressed
together or none of them will be solved at all.''
We passed a bill. The Senate passed a bill. But we haven't gone to
conference. The Republican leadership of the Senate and the House have
been stuck in the mud while America knew it had a problem that needed
to be solved.
Today, the House Republicans come forward with this rifle-shot bill,
this regurgitation of one aspect of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Republican bill, if it does pass,
is going nowhere. It will not be passed. We are wasting our time and
the American people's time.
For months now, Republican infighting has prevented this Congress
from enacting true immigration reform and protection, and that
infighting and unwillingness to compromise on the part of House
Republicans is what instigated this narrow bill.
Now, what compels us on this bill? We only have 2\1/2\ weeks, 3 weeks
to go, the elections are coming, and, very frankly, the Republicans
aren't doing too well, and the fear factor is one of their major
political ploys.
Our Republican friends are desperate for a legislative victory and
desperate for political talking points. They recognize that, as Senator
Specter, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said,
``Republicans control both Houses and the White House. If we don't move
forward and solve the immigration reform problem and border security,
we are not doing our job.'' Today, we are pretending to do our job.
We are not doing our job. There is a bill in conference, but we are
not working on it.
Today, I urge you to support the comprehensive alternative that will
be offered by the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee,
which deals in a comprehensive way, which is what President Bush
suggested we ought to do.
We should be coming together, on a bipartisan basis, on comprehensive
legislation that would make us safer by beefing up security along our
borders.
That is precisely what the Reyes-Thompson substitute would do--
providing the technology, personnel, equipment and infrastructure to
monitor and secure every mile of the border every hour of every day.
Instead, House Republicans are engaging in this charade.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank Chairman King also for his hard work on this legislation and for
the tremendous efforts of his committee, a committee that this Congress
didn't have as a standing committee until a year and a few months ago
when he put together, and his colleagues, the first effort
congressionally from a permanent committee to look at these important
issues.
Our immigration system, Mr. Speaker, is fundamentally flawed. There
are millions of workers in the United States who entered the country
illegally. Most of those individuals mean no harm to anyone. But any
government that cannot account for all those entering and leaving the
country, either legally or illegally, must deal seriously and quickly
with that problem, especially if the government is at war with an enemy
that has publicly stated its efforts to exploit every weakness we have.
As one border sheriff said, standing by me at a news conference
earlier this year--a border sheriff, by the way, from the other party,
a border sheriff who understood this problem intimately every day. He
said, ``If you can come across the border for the perfectly
understandable reason of a better job, you can come across the border
in a way that does much more harm to people than anyone can now
anticipate.''
{time} 1445
As I have been discussing with many of my colleagues in recent days,
the House has already had success in securing resources, such as
additional Border Patrol agents and vehicles, for immediate border
security needs in this year's current budget, in the supplemental
budget, in the budget that we will vote on for next year later this
month.
I draw my colleagues' attention to these pictures, pictures of the
kind of work that has been going on along the border for months now:
Seventy-five miles of fence already completed, 42 miles of fence
nearing completion, more Border Control officers, more detention
facilities, the return of people who have illegally entered this
country to their country for the first time in decades, the assistance
of the National Guard. All have led to a more secure border. Today we
continue our efforts to undertake emergency measures to ensure that the
operational control of the border will continue to improve.
Again, I commend Chairman King for his leadership. This act, the
Secure Fence Act of 2006, will provide over 700 miles of two-layered,
reinforced fencing along the border. It will mandate that the
Department of Homeland Security maintain operational control over the
entire border through a ``virtual fence'' comprised of electronic
surveillance and equipment.
I urge my colleagues to take another step today for greater border
security by voting for this act.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding, and I would like to associate myself with
the majority whip's comments, as he explained the comprehensive
approach that we are arguing for, supporting on the floor of the House.
I raised this earlier, a letter from four governors, two Republicans
Governor Schwarzenegger from California and Governor Perry from Texas,
the Governor of Arizona and the Governor of New Mexico. They begged
this body to enforce a response to immigration by making it a
comprehensive response. They begged us to stop holding field hearings
that do little but stir up discontent, and they asked this Congress to
get to work, and that is what Democrats are saying.
This whole idea of a fence is not a new idea. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle know that the fence language is in the Senate
bill. A simple conference could move a comprehensive response forward,
but more importantly, as the Christian Science Monitor said, the fence
is only a tactic. It is not a policy. And that is what has happened in
this Congress. We failed in the overall policy of addressing the
question of immigration. And so we fail our Border Patrol agents, we
fail our Customs and Border Protection agents to the extent that they
do not have enough resources to have what we call secondary
inspections.
So what we are talking about is adding 3,000 new Border Patrol
agents, making sure we have 12,000 new agents;
[[Page H6589]]
creating 2,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent positions,
having coordination between the northern and southern border. They
don't talk to each other. Creating detention beds, having a virtual
reality.
Does anybody know what we will do with those individuals that are
caught? We are creating 25,000 new detention beds. That is what
Democrats are talking about, comprehensive reform.
Then I might suggest that the other aspect of what we are saying is
that we must have surveillance. We must have physical infrastructure.
We have got to be able to address this question from both sides, not a
single one-target issue. This issue before us is dividing and divisive.
We ask that you support the Democratic motion to recommit but, more
importantly, that you answer the question, not a tactic, Mr. Speaker,
but yet a policy.
And I close by saying read the newspapers. This is a drug fight at
the border. Where is the DEA? Where is the FBI? Where is more funding?
That is really what we are addressing.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6061, the so-called
``Secure Fence Act of 2006.'' I oppose the bill because it neither a
serious nor comprehensive measure to secure our nation's borders. It
does not provide any specific dollar amounts to build the fence called
for in the bill, and nowhere does the bill authorize the additional
Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Customs
Inspectors needed to secure the border. In short, Mr. Speaker, H.R.
6061 is an election-year gimmick intended to obscure the fact that the
majority party has done nothing of consequence in the past 5 years to
secure the nation's borders from terrorist attack. It is time to try a
new approach; it is time for a new direction. The Democratic Substitute
offered by Mr. Thompson, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security
Committee, is a large step in the right direction and that is why I
find that legislative proposal far superior to H.R. 6061.
Mr. Speaker, building walls and fences is not a panacea and a ``one
size fits all'' approach is a wholly unrealistic and inadequate means
of securing the border. Although some communities seem to approve of
border fences, many others do not. For instance, Alex Perrone, the
Mayor of Calexico, California, is opposed to additional fences.
Calexico already has a border crossing as well as a chain-link fence
that separates it from its Mexican neighbor. According to Mayor
Perrone, the border towns have had a close relationship for more than
100 years, and a massive fence would strain their friendship and
symbiotic relationship. Mayor Perrone believes that it would change how
our neighbors view us and how we do business.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner W. Ralph
Basham, it does not make sense to construct fences along the border.
Stemming the flow of illegal immigration and drug trafficking requires
a combination of manpower, technology, and infrastructure, not just
barriers.
History shows that even the most substantial walls can be breached.
In California, the border fence has been circumvented by tunneling (20
tunnels have been discovered) and by going around both ends of the
fence. This has diverted illegal traffic to more remote areas, but it
has not stopped people from crossing. It just makes crossing more
dangerous and increases reliance on professional smugglers. The
diversion to more desolate areas has exacted a heavy toll in human
lives. Moving through the mountains and scorching-hot deserts has
resulted in many deaths. The number of persons who have died crossing
the border since the fences were constructed is conservatively
estimated at 3,600. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way to secure our
borders.
a new Direction on Border Security
What we should do instead is follow the direction charted for us in
the Thompson Substitute which, among other things:
1. Establishes Operational Control of All Borders and Ports by
requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop a
comprehensive border security strategy that increases deployment of
Border Patrol agents, provides increased surveillance through the use
of technology, and ensures the free flow of legitimate travel and
trade. It also mandates placement of technology to monitor every mile
of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and permits the emergency
deployment of up to 1,000 additional U.S. Border Patrol agents for the
purpose of patrolling and defending the international border.
2. Provides Significant New Resources Annually to Secure the Border
including 3,000 new Border Patrol agents (12,000 total) and a new
Border Patrol training facility to expand capacity and an increase in
Border Patrol agent and inspector pay from GS-11 to GS-13. There are
substantial increases in personnel authorized for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Marshals, U.S. Attorneys, Immigration
Judges, Coast Guard, Investigators of Fraudulent Schemes and Documents,
Port of entry inspectors, and Canine Enforcement Teams.
3. Provides the Equipment and Resources Needed to Get the Job Done.
The Thompson Substitute recognizes the importance of providing the
tools needed to secure our borders by authorizing the purchase of
additional helicopters, power boats, motor vehicles, portable
computers, radio communications, hand-held global positioning system
devices, night vision equipment, body armor, and weapons.
4. Ends the ``Catch and Release'' Practice. To maintain effective
control over the border, we must end the Bush Administration's practice
of ``catch and release.'' The Substitute makes this possible by
authorizing 100,000 additional detentions bed spaces through FY 2010 to
assist with the deportation of undocumented individuals. It also
increases the number of Detention and Removal Officers by 1,000 through
FY 2010 to manage the additional detention facilities and capacity and
to enhance the removal process.
5. Promotes International Policies to Deter Illegal Immigration by
requiring DHS to report to Congress on the progress of cross-border
security agreements signed between Mexico and Canada and the United
States, including the Smart Border Accord and the Security Partnership
for Prosperity.
6. Orders DHS to Locate Undocumented Immigrants that Have Been Set
Free Under the ``Catch and Release'' program and instructs DHS to
locate all 110,000 of those undocumented immigrants and deal with these
cases, deporting those who are deportable or providing other results as
required by law.
7. Finally, the Thompson Substitute Directs DHS to:
Locate and Deport ALL Criminal Aliens;
Deport ALL Deportable Criminal Aliens Serving Sentences in State or
Federal Correctional Facilities;
Ensure that Local and State Correctional Facilities Cooperate in the
Deportation of Criminal Aliens at the End of Criminal Sentences;
Improve and Strengthen Border and Immigration Enforcement; and
Return Deported Aliens to Countries that Delay or Deny Return of
their Citizens.
Mr. Speaker, were the majority party in this House serious about
securing the nation's borders, it would eagerly embrace and adopt the
Thompson Substitute. A vote for H.R. 6061 is a vote to continue down
the same wrong-headed path that got us into the fix we are in. It is
foolish to maintain the status quo and stay the course. It is time for
change. It is time for a new direction.
I urge you therefore to vote against H.R. 6061, the ``Secure Fence''
(but insecure Border) Act.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to
the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the committee, Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of the Secure Fence Act.
Americans want real border security now.
When I went to the border, the sheriffs along the border, the Border
Patrol, they support the House bill, which we have now had to break up.
I heard over the August recess from about 25,000 constituents who
almost unanimously opposed the Senate's amnesty bill. They want the
border closed before we work on a guest worker program. Yet obviously
the Senate refused to consider the whole package that the American
public supports. Instead, they decide to play fast and loose with
Americans' hard-earned benefits by agreeing to broad amnesty.
Though the Senate put us in a terrible logjam, Chairman King is
showing with this bill that the House is serious about securing our
borders.
Listen up, America. We agree that lax border security is a threat.
Illegal aliens, criminals, and terrorists alike can too easily cross
the gaps too long left unplugged. We are a Nation at war and cannot
afford to play Russian roulette with border security.
I obviously urge my colleagues to support the Secure Fence Act, and I
would like to briefly quote Robert Frost, who said, ``Good fences make
good neighbors.'' And that is really what this is all about.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is the author of the
original amendment on the wall.
[[Page H6590]]
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
My colleagues, since 9/11 border enforcement became not an
immigration issue primarily but a national security issue primarily. We
have to know who is coming across our borders and what they are
bringing with them. That requires a fence.
The fence in San Diego works. When we built that fence, we had border
gangs robbing, raping, murdering, killing mostly the illegal aliens who
came through, preying on those people. We had 300 drug trucks a month
ramming across the open border, coming through the sagebrush. We had a
border that was out of control. It was the primary smuggling corridor
in the world for smuggling of people and narcotics.
We built the double fence. We stopped the drug trucks cold. We
stopped the murderers. We stopped the border gangs. And the crime rate
in the City of San Diego dropped by more than 50 percent, according to
FBI statistics.
The fence works, and moving this fence across the Southwest before
the next hot season, before the sun gets to be 110 in the shade, which
will happen next summer, getting that first stretch of fence across the
hot Arizona desert will save many lives because about 400 people a year
die in that desert of dehydration or sunstroke after their smuggler
tells them it is just a few miles north to the road and it turns out to
be 10 or 20 miles.
The fence works. Let's replicate this fence across the Southwest
border so we know who is coming into the country and what they are
bringing with them.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, with approximately 12 days left in this legislative 2-
year session, we are talking about retreads, an idea that we have
already voted on before, an idea that has passed this House but has
been rejected by the Senate. That is what we are being left with to
tell the people of America what we will do about our broken immigration
laws. We are on a path to do nothing once again in this Congress on
immigration reform.
This is a bill which says we want to build a fence but provides not a
single penny to get the job done on a project that will cost several
billion dollars. This is a bill that says we should try to protect our
borders but does not one single thing to increase the number of Border
Patrol agents, Immigration Enforcement officers, or Customs inspectors
that we need to make sure that we protect our borders. This is a bill
that says it wants to protect America but does not a single thing about
the cargo containers that are coming into this country through all our
seaports every day, some 12 million or so cargo containers per year. We
are not doing anything to increase our inspection of them when only one
of every 16 of those cargo containers that enter into our country is
inspected as we speak.
Mr. Speaker, we are on a path to do nothing. We are in essence
moonwalking on the issue of immigration reform once again. Without the
Senate's supporting us in the last 12 days of this legislative 2-year
session, what can we accomplish? Not a great deal.
There is a bipartisan bill out there that we could vote on today and
get this done to the American people's satisfaction, but that is not
being proposed today. Instead, we have a prescription to do nothing.
It is time to change. Democrats are ready to sit down with our
Republican colleagues and friends and come up with a bipartisan
approach that is tough, smart, and comprehensive. Let's get it done.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
At the outset let me commend and thank my friend Mr. Thompson from
Mississippi both for, I believe, the high quality of debate certainly
on his side and hopefully on our side today and also for the
cooperation that he has given throughout the time that I have been
chairman over the last year as chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that is more on the minds of the
American people than illegal immigration, and there is one part of the
bill that we passed last December which has overwhelming support, and
that is the construction of a fence along significant parts of the
southern border, operational control of the balance of the border, and
also to give Border Patrol agents the authority to stop vehicles, to
use force to stop vehicles. But, again, the key part of this is
operational control and significant control, including the use of a
fence along the southern border.
We can tell the American people we have heard the message. We can
tell the American people that we are willing to put aside political
correctness and do the right thing.
It is legislation that is humane because it will save lives. It is
legislation that will work as it was done in San Diego. It is
legislation which would tell the American people that we are serious
about combating illegal immigration. And rather than wait for
everything, we will do what we can and we will just step up to the
plate and get it done.
With that, I urge passage of H.R. 6061.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to make my position on this issue
clear. I support the construction of a fence to better secure our
border and supported its funding in the Homeland Security
Appropriations Act. However, this bill simply doesn't provide for a
fence. In a typical example of congressional overreaching and
micromanagement, the bill specifies exactly how such a fence will be
built and the precise location of each segment of the fence. We are
neither engineers nor construction managers nor do we know the best
alignment of such a fence. We should simply direct the experts to
construct a fence that accomplishes the objective of preventing illegal
immigration and allow it to be built in the most cost-effective manner.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support H.R.
6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It is critical that we pass this
bill to further strengthen our borders.
House Republicans have been forced to pursue this measure separately,
because of the earlier opposition by the vast majority of Democrats who
opposed that border security bill. Unfortunately, liberals in the
Senate weakened the House approved bills so much when they brought it
up for consideration in the Senate, that it is more of an amnesty bill
than a border security bill. I cannot support any bill that weakens our
borders and provides more benefits to illegal aliens, but that is what
the Senate bill does.
H.R. 6061 places security first. Border security is national
security. According to Customs and Border Patrol, 644 illegal
immigrants from countries that sponsor terrorism were apprehended by
the Border Patrol in 2005. The fact that these individuals were caught
illegally crossing into the U.S. should concern us all. These illegal
aliens were from terrorist-sponsoring nations such as Somalia, Iran,
Indonesia, and Bangladesh, as well as from other nations, such as
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, where Islamic militants, such as
al-Qaida, operate. We do not know how many succeeded in entering
illegally, nor do we know whether they entered with plans to harm
Americans.
As further proof that terrorists are attempting to enter our country,
the Sheriff of Zapata County, Texas indicated recently that Iranian
currency, Arabic military badges, jackets and other clothing are among
items that have been discovered along the banks of the Rio Grande
River. Some of these attempting to cross the border illegally are from
militant Islamic groups that have conducted terrorism on the U.S. A
living example is Mahmoud Kourani, the brother of a Lebanese military
leader of Hezbollah, an organization clearly identified as a terrorist
organization. He was able to come into our country by bribing a Mexican
consulate official to obtain a Mexican visa and was smuggled into
California. Fortunately, he was later caught.
H.R. 6061 will help shut down the flow of illegal immigration into
the United States through utilizing additional physical barriers,
fencing, and state-of-the-art technology such as UAVs. It calls for
immediate construction of nearly 100 miles of two-layered reinforced
fencing along the southwest border. Additionally, it authorizes the
Border Patrol to disable vehicles fleeing from Border Patrol agents.
This is a good bill that takes immediate steps to close gaping holes
in our border security. Having these fences in place will also enable
the Border Patrol to shift agents from those areas to focus on non-
fenced areas, better utilizing our agents.
The border fence in San Diego has proven to cut down on illegal
entry. It is long overdue that we expand this effective means of
securing our border. I am also pleased that the bill requests a study
on the necessity and feasibility of constructing a state-of-the-art
barrier system along the border with Canada.
[[Page H6591]]
I urge the adoption of this resolution.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6061. The
consideration of H.R. 6061 is a thinly veiled effort from the
Republican Leadership to garner their party's base support in November.
H.R. 6061 is a red herring to the real issue that Congress should
address: comprehensive immigration reform.
But, as we all know, ``Politics . . . (for) all too long, has been
concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.'' (Richard
Armour)
This bill's objectives are not new to this body, in fact, we have
already voted on them in the form of H.R. 4377, the very bill which has
spurred protests all year long, throughout the country, due to its
punitive and unjust nature.
The major initiative in H.R. 6061 is to complete segments of fencing,
eventually ensuring 700 miles of it along the southwestern border. One
section of this wall would cover practically the whole Arizona-
California border.
But Republicans and Democrats know that more fencing along the border
is like placing a band-aid on a gaping wound. It will not fix our
broken immigration system; it will only serve to move the flow of
illegal immigration into more remote and dangerous portions of the
country.
In fact, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has called
fencing ``a less efficient way'' to address border security than adding
more border security officers and yet this Republican led House insists
on considering this bill.
Furthermore, building a 2-layer fence through hundreds of miles of
public lands and National Parks will have severe ramifications on the
delicate ecosystems of the desert. Already in Arizona alone, the Border
Patrol estimates that 39 protected or proposed to be protected species
are being affected by its operations. This only serves to highlight how
this issue has not been viewed through a comprehensive lens.
As people cross our southern border, what kind of image do we want to
portray to visitors, our own citizens or their family members? We
should not convince ourselves that America is exempt from the images
associated with other historic barriers, such as the Berlin Wall, the
Maginot Line and the Great Wall of China.
I urge the Republican Leadership of the House of Representatives to
address comprehensive reform of the Nation's immigration system so that
immigration is legal, safe, orderly, and reflective of the needs of
American families, businesses, and national security instead of
engaging in this election year political grandstanding.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6016,
the so-called Secure Fence Act.
Once again, we are playing politics instead of debating sound public
policy. As we conduct the last legislative business before November's
mid-terms, the Republican Leadership has fast-tracked a bill that was
introduced just yesterday, in a cynical attempt to mislead the American
people, who are demanding real policy, not this political pandering.
Mr. Speaker, we have had plenty of time to have an actual debate on
immigration. This rhetoric is simply a way to make it look like
Republicans are doing something, when they have squandered
opportunities to pass amendments offered by Democrats to help address
immigration and border security. Over the past four and a half years,
Republicans have voted against Democratic amendments that would have
added an additional 6,600 Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more beds to
detain undocumented people, and 2,700 more ICS agents.
However, these Band-Aid bills that the Republicans keep bringing to
the floor do not address the overall wound--our immigration system
needs an overhaul from the top down. Arming troops to intimidate the
defenseless and building up costly fences will not address the issues
of immigration backlogs and more effective border patrol and customs
management.
Mr. Speaker, let's address the real issues when it comes to
immigration. Let's talk about the work these people are literally dying
to come over here to do. Let's talk about why our neighbors would risk
their lives and well-being, and that of their children and loved ones,
to get across the border for low-paying jobs, in often less-than-
desirable work environments--picking from pesticide sprayed crops, or
teetering 40 stories high in the air to make the high rises they
probably also helped build, look clean.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you--when does the Republican Leadership stop
playing politics here, and start working on actual policy; Policy to
address the real issues important to Americans--like real immigration
reform, like healthcare, education, rebuilding of our Gulf Coast, and
ending the bloodshed in Iraq.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and
appreciate Chairman King's leadership on this issue.
There is perhaps no more important issue than national security. And
border security is national security.
So I am pleased that the House Leadership has chosen to bring this
bill to a vote. And because our colleagues on the other side of the
Capitol say they want to secure the borders, I am hopeful this bill
will soon be signed by the President.
The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to prevent
illegal entry into the United States within 18 months of enactment by
using technological and physical infrastructures. Many of us have been
calling for this for years.
In fact, another provision of H.R. 6061 builds on a concept included
in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act, which I authored as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee. In
that bill we required fencing to be built near San Diego, California,
because of the large number of illegal border crossings.
That fencing was built and it was effective--the number of illegal
immigrants crossing in that area fell drastically.
And now illegal immigrants cross the border in places with no
barriers or that have only vehicle barriers that are easy to climb.
Over one million people were apprehended crossing the border
illegally last year; millions of others crossed illegally but were not
apprehended. It is clear that Congress and the Administration need to
do everything possible to secure the border.
Anything less leaves our country more vulnerable to terrorist attack
and leaves our citizens and legal immigrants paying the welfare,
education, healthcare and other costs associated with illegal
immigration.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as a nation founded and built by immigrants,
the United States has a proud history of reaching out to foreigners and
offering refuge and opportunity to those who seek it. We must, however,
find better ways of ensuring that people who wish to enter our country
to study, to work, to reunite with family, or to seek refuge--do so
legally and maintain their legal status so they can be integrated
properly and fully into American society.
The current immigration system is broken and requires comprehensive
reform that strengthens border security; bolsters enforcement of
immigration laws; recognizes the importance of the immigrant workforce
to the U.S. economy; and provides a realistic and practical solution
for the twelve million undocumented immigrants residing within our
borders. Thus it is not sufficient to focus entirely on border
security.
The bill before us today, however, addresses only one aspect of the
immigration problem. Studies have shown that a large portion of people
living illegally in this country entered through legal, work-based
immigration channels, but then failed to renew their status. This shows
that a bill focusing primarily on border enforcement will not prevent
the increase of immigrants living in this country illegally.
Therefore, while immediate measures need to be taken to address the
status of immigrants residing both within and outside our borders, we
must work to ensure a responsible measure is produced that secures our
border and enforces current law, does not penalize American businesses,
and addresses the undocumented workers already living and working in
our country.
While I will vote for H.R. 6061 today as a step forward in securing
our borders, I continue to hope that this Congress will enact a more
thoughtful and long-lasting solution to this most pressing issue.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Border Fence bill. It is
yet another instance when the leaders in this Congress chose to ignore
the real issues facing Americans and consider legislation this Congress
has already passed. I opposed the legislation for the border fence when
it was before the House earlier this year and I will oppose it again
this time.
There is an awful practice this House has consistently gotten into .
. . passing bills with great fanfare, then not funding them. That is
what we have done with the 9-11 report . . . the Majority was guilted
to pass into law the reforms the 9/11 Commission told us would prevent
us from another attack. Then we never funded it.
This border fence is a profoundly bad policy because it won't work.
Yet it is already included in 2 bills passed by the House this year.
This is election year politics at its worst. The $2.2 billion it is
estimated this bill would cost could fund almost 2,500 new Border
Patrol agents for five years, a 22% increase in the force.
This is not about security. You want security? Then you want
comprehensive immigration reform. This President and this Congress
brought us to this place . . . where our Border Patrol agents routinely
release OTMs (Other than Mexicans) into the U.S. population because we
have no room to hold them.
[[Page H6592]]
It is in the national security interest of this nation to know who is
living inside our borders, and we cannot do that without offering them
a path to citizenship so they can come out of the shadows and be part
of this economy. That's how you secure this country--not with a fence.
As the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Border Caucus, I
have been advocating for adequate border security funding before it was
a political issue this year. In particular I have been concerned with
the lack of detention space, the need for adequate technology for our
United States Border Patrol, the need for more immigration judges,
prosecutors and customs agents, and the importance of sanctions on
employers illegally employing immigrants.
None of those issues are addressed in the bill before us today.
Rather, this bill simply authorizes 700 miles of fencing--again--along
the 2,000 mile U.S.-Mexico Border.
The Southern part of my district rests along the U.S-Mexico border
and my constituents want real solutions. We have 8-10 million people
living in this country that we have absolutely no information on. This
is a national security issue. In a post September 11th world, we must
comprehensively address immigration and border security. When Congress
last addressed immigration reform it was in the late 1980s and they did
not do it together--that was a mistake and this Congress is going down
that same wrong path.
Border security and immigration enforcement are very serious issues
which deserve solemn debate and discussion in Congress. They are not
getting them with this controversial political ploy.
Here's a real solution: provide a virtual fence to substantially
improve border security and immigration enforcement, as the Reyes-
Thompson substitute proposes. Their motion includes provisions to
provide the technology, personnel, and equipment needed to monitor and
secure every mile of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
I urge the members to vote ``no'' on the border fence, and to support
the Reyes-Thompson substitute.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6061, the
Secure Fence Act. I ask my colleagues: If you were considering
illegally immigrating to a country, which would be more likely to keep
you out: a fence, or knowing that it would be impossible to get a job
in that country?
The answer is obvious. You can't tunnel around unemployment.
So why won't my Republican colleagues support comprehensive
immigration reform that would provide a stable, legal workforce and
harshly punish employers who hire illegal immigrants? Maybe they don't
want to admit that we need some immigrant labor to make this country
run. Maybe they don't want to offend their corporate backers who want
to continue exploiting illegal immigrants by paying them low wages
without benefits. Maybe they think the image of a fence will play well
to their base in the upcoming election. Maybe they think it will
distract voters from the fact that they haven't done anything to fix
our dysfunctional immigration system.
Whatever the ploy, I refuse to go along. This is the United States of
America--not the former East Germany. We don't solve problems by
building fences. We can be smarter and we can do better. I urge my
colleagues to reject this embarrassing bill.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed today that the House is
once again refusing to take up substantive, comprehensive border
security and immigration reform legislation which could actually be
enacted into law before we adjourn for the year.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that Congress pass meaningful
and effective border security and immigration reform. Since the 9/11
terrorist attacks, Congress has taken significant steps to secure our
border and prevent another terrorist attack on our soil. Congress
created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and a strong Director
of National Intelligence, which constituted the largest reorganization
of our law enforcement and intelligence services since World War II.
As a former member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I know
that the United States must move rapidly to: establish operational
control of all borders and ports; end our ``catch and release''
practice of aliens apprehended crossing the border illegally;
effectively organize the border security agencies within the Department
of Homeland Security; and promote international policies to deter
illegal immigration.
I support the Motion to Recommit to this legislation, which would:
create 3,000 new U.S. Border Patrol agent positions; create 2,000 new
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent positions; improve
recruitment and retention of border security personnel; create 25,000
new detention beds annually, for a total of 100,000 new detention beds;
and develop a comprehensive border surveillance system.
I agree with the former 9/11 Commissioners, who recently issued a
report which concluded that Congress and the Administration have much
more work to do to make America safer, and gave our government fair to
poor grades for our current level of border security. This legislation
does nothing to provide the significant new resources called for by the
9/11 Commission report.
I am disappointed, therefore, that the leadership of the House of
Representatives has failed to allow the House to take up a
comprehensive homeland security and immigration reform bill that
addresses the pressing vulnerabilities in our border security. The
House has already passed legislation in December which authorizes the
creation of new fencing, and the Senate has passed a much broader
border security and immigration reform measure. The House leadership
should immediately proceed to a conference with the Senate to reconcile
these differences. Border security is too important and should be
included in legislation that can be quickly enacted into law.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today's house bill H.R. 6061 signals a
complete abrogation of responsibility on the part of the House
Republican leadership. If they were serious about solving the problems
of immigration they would not just introduce another bill that will go
nowhere in the Senate. They should instead convene a conference
committee. The House passed an immigration bill on December 16th, 2005,
and the Senate passed its own version 112 days ago. Instead of moving
forward to have a serious discussion to resolve policy differences,
they have ground the legislative process to a halt and engaged in acts
of political theater.
The most notable of these acts was the series of well-publicized
pretend hearings around the country, which were designed to score media
points and not resolve differences to move the legislation forward. The
introduction and passage of this border security legislation is the
latest in a line of political acts. Rather than continue this game, the
majority leadership should be willing to move forward in an honest
effort to resolve differences and pass a real bill.
Questions of border security and immigration reform should be dealt
with in a very serious manner. By choosing to play politics with an
important and sensitive issue we are just breeding more cynicism on the
part of the American public and making scapegoats out of both
undocumented immigrants as well as the many who are here legally and
are feeling increasingly uncomfortable because of this polarization.
Fortunately, the American public will have a say in November and have
a chance to vote for new leadership and bring an end to the charade
surrounding immigration and border security reform.
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to H.R. 6061, the Secure Fences Act of 2006. We need a comprehensive
solution for our immigration policy. This measure irresponsibly
attempts to gloss over the problem of securing our nation's borders
rather than working to finalize negotiations on a all-encompassing
solution. It is a transparent political attempt by the majority to
coerce voters into believing something is being done, when in fact this
measure does not even outline a funding mechanism to put these
provisions into action.
According the Department of Homeland Security, we need a varied
approach to the border security problem combining personnel, equipment,
technology, and infrastructure improvements. For the estimated cost of
the fence proposed in H.R. 6061, we could instead spend $2 billion to
purchase the 35,000 detention beds authorized in the 9/11 Act of 2004
and end the ``catch and release'' practice. For $360 million we could
hire, train, and equip 2,000 new border control agents also outlined in
the 9/11 Act. For $400 million we could hire 250 port-of-entry
inspectors or acquire 1,000 radiation monitors to screen 100 percent of
the cargo entering U.S. ports for nuclear material. Spending what will
likely be over $7 billion to build a fence instead of providing the
enhanced manpower and technology the Department of Homeland Security
has identified as necessary is a misuse of taxpayers' money.
American citizens deserve real solutions. The problem of securing our
Nation's borders is not one exclusive to the southern border. The lack
of adequate border control enforcement at the northern border presents
a serious threat to our national security, particularly in respect to
the war on terror. A border security measure calling for nothing more
than a study on the northern border is grossly underestimating the
threat an unsecured northern border presents to our national security.
My colleague, Representative Bennie Thompson, ranking member on the
Homeland Security Committee, presented a responsible alternative to
this measure with realistic and possible solutions. His substitute
amendment would have provided the funding authorization for the
personnel and technology
[[Page H6593]]
needed to realistically secure the entire border, not just the Mexican
border. Unfortunately, the majority did not allow the substitute bill
to be considered and receive an up or down vote on the House floor.
It is for these reasons I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject
this measure and devote our time and effort to developing a
responsible, comprehensive solution to secure our borders.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman King and
Majority Leader Boehner for their leadership in bringing this important
piece of legislation to the floor. It cannot be overstated how crucial
the need is for America to have secure borders, and this bill is a step
in that direction.
For too long we have seen the effects of a porous border. An
estimated eight to twelve million undocumented aliens are here
illegally in the United States. Last year alone, over a million illegal
aliens were apprehended at the border, but the Border Patrol estimates
that many more have crossed undetected. In addition, there is evidence
to support that Al Qaeda would like to exploit our South West Border.
We cannot let this happen
I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation which is vital to the
security of our borders and our Nation.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 6061, the Secure
Fence Act. Although I voted to pass this bill to demonstrate my support
of strong border enforcement, it is yet another example of the House
Republican leadership's piecemeal approach to immigration reform.
America's immigration system is broken, but instead of implementing
comprehensive, commonsense solutions such as increasing the number of
border agents, funding more detention beds and enforcing current
immigration law, House Republicans have chosen to manipulate this issue
for partisan political purposes.
In December of 2004 I voted in favor of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Commission
Recommendations Implementation Act. This bill, which passed the House
on a vote of 282-134 and which the President signed into law on
December 17 of that year, authorized Customs and Border Patrol to hire
10,000 new border agents over the next 5 years as well as add 35,000
detention beds to hold illegal immigrants while they are being process
for deportation.
Although the bill passed overwhelmingly, House Republicans refused to
back up this important legislation with the necessary funds to
implement the provisions. The President, who signed the bill into law,
only provided funds for 210 border agents in his fiscal year 2006
budget request.
The United States cannot secure its borders with only physical
barriers. We can only achieve effective immigration reform and border
security through a combination of consistent enforcement of current
immigration law, the addition of the thousands of additional border
security personnel that Congress has already authorized, and the
implementation of a fair, balanced immigration plan that encourages
lawfulness, rewards hard work and safeguards families.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
I commend the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Boehner and the
chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Mr. King of New York,
for moving this bill and for their strong leadership on border security
issues.
The last two years, I have toured parts of our nation's southwest
border with Mexico. Only after seeing the vastness of the landscape and
the nearly invisible line that separates our country from Mexico, did I
come to fully appreciate the border security crisis our nation faces
today.
I support this bill because it provides for the use of personnel and
technology--such as cameras and sensors, satellites and unmanned aerial
vehicles--to gain operational control of our borders. These are vital
tools for our Border Patrol agents who are the tip of the spear in
protecting our country.
Beginning in June of last year, the Homeland Security Subcommittee
that I chair began a series of hearings to closely examine the
Department's existing border technology program, know as ISIS--the
Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System. Unfortunately, our reviews
uncovered waste and mismanagement of precious funds provided for border
technology.
Last November, the Department of Homeland Security announced the
launch of the Secure Border Initiative--the Department's multi-billion
dollar effort to integrate technology, infrastructure, and personnel to
secure our borders.
While I support the Department's efforts, my subcommittee has already
begun to closely monitor this program and we will hold an oversight
hearing this fall on the new SBI contract.
In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for this important
bill and hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this
important legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1002, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. In its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Thompson moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 6061, to the
Committee on Homeland Security with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. MONITORING AND SECURING THE UNITED STATES BORDER.
(a) Operational Control of the Border.--Not later than
September 30, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
obtain operational control over the entire international land
and maritime border of the United States.
(b) Workforce Enhancements.--In obtaining operational
control over the border under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall:
(1) Increase--
(A) by not less than 3,000 in each of fiscal years 2007
through 2010 the number of positions for full-time active
duty Border Patrol agents; and
(B) by not less than 2,000 in each of fiscal years 2007
through 2010 the number of positions for full-time active
duty immigration enforcement agents for work at the border.
(2) Establish northern and southern border coordinators to
oversee the security of the border in their respective
geographic areas.
(3) Establish a plan to improve the recruitment and
retention of border security personnel.
(c) Security Enhancements.--In obtaining operational
control over the border under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall:
(1) Increase by not less than 25,000 in each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2010 the number of detention bed spaces.
(2) Establish a plan to reduce the use of fraudulent
immigration documents to gain admission to the United States.
(d) Surveillance System.--In obtaining operational control
over the border under subsection (a), the Secretary shall:
(1) Develop a surveillance system of the international land
and maritime borders of the United States that, when combined
with the personnel authorized in subsection (b), and
otherwise authorized under law, ensures continuous monitoring
of every mile of the United States border on a 24-hour basis,
7 days a week, and is fully interoperable with existing
surveillance systems used by the Department of Homeland
Security.
(2) Not later than March 1, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall submit a plan for surveillance over the United
States border to the appropriate congressional committees (as
defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101)). The plan shall set forth--
(A) an assessment of existing technologies to determine if
one technology is better than another, or whether there is a
way to combine the capabilities of various detection devices
into a single system;
(B) an assessment of how the United States Border Patrol is
working, or will work, with the Directorate of Science and
Technology to analyze high altitude monitoring technologies
(such as unmanned aerial vehicles and tethered aerostat radar
systems) for use with land-based monitoring technologies;
(C) a description of how radiation portal monitors will be
deployed to ports of entry;
(D) a description of the use of K-9 detection units along
the United States border;
(E) a list of any obstacles that may impede full
implementation of the deployment plan; and
(F) a detailed estimate of all costs associated with the
implementation of the deployment plan.
(d) Physical Infrastructure Enhancements.--In obtaining
operational control over the United States border under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall make physical
infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by
aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the
international land and maritime borders by the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection, including but not limited to
additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle
barriers, while maintaining the speed of commerce through
such points of entry.
(e) Operational Control Defined.--In this section, the term
``operational control'' means the prevention of all unlawful
entries into the United States, including entries by
terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism,
narcotics, and other contraband.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to
[[Page H6594]]
carry out this section $5,290,000,000 for fiscal year 2007,
and such sums as may be necessary for each succeeding fiscal
year.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Mississippi is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, today we have heard over
and over again from Republicans that good fences make good neighbors.
Ironically, that tag line comes from a Robert Frost poem entitled
``Mending Wall'' that seemingly questions whether a wall in need of
repair is worth the effort. Even more ironic in this is the fact that
this poem is about mending a fence, something that this bill does not
pay for. In fact, H.R. 6061 does not even pay for the fence to be
built. If border security is so important, why do my colleagues across
the aisle refuse to do it right?
Mr. Reyes and I are offering this motion to recommit to ensure that
the Department of Homeland Security has the resources and capabilities
to address our border security problems. This motion to recommit would
secure our borders and protect the American people.
That is not to say there is not more to be done. Congress still must
face the issues of comprehensive immigration reform, which Republicans
refuse to bring to the floor and have used parliamentary procedure to
keep it from discussion today. But if Republicans insist on voting yet
again on border security, let's do it right.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the former Border
Patrol chief from El Paso, Texas, my colleague Silvestre Reyes.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This debate today is about whether or not this Congress can afford to
micromanage what the United States Customs and Border Protection does
on our border. This bill calls for a fence from Calexico to Douglas,
from Laredo to Brownsville, from Columbus to El Paso, from Del Rio to
Eagle Pass, and a fence in the Tecate area as well.
Our position in this motion to recommit is, instead of micromanaging,
let us give the Customs and Border Protection the resources that they
need. Let us give them real meaningful legislative support.
Under our bill we give them additional Border Patrol agents.
{time} 1500
Under our bill we give them security enhancements, we give them
surveillance enhancements, we give them practical infrastructure
enhancements. In other words, what we do is, we provide them the
support and ask them, what is it that you need; tell us how you are
going to enhance the ability to better monitor the border.
We think that makes sense. We can do much better than micromanage
from here. We wouldn't micromanage and tell generals in Iraq or
Afghanistan how to fight that war. Why should we do that when we are
trying to defend our homeland? We can do much better.
This bill, from my perspective, and from my 26\1/2\ years of
experience with the Border Patrol, as I walked in, I listened to my
colleague from California, Congressman Hunter. He was talking about a
fence that was effective. There are limited areas where fencing is
effective, but to put a fence from Columbus to El Paso, a stretch of 88
miles, is ridiculous. It is not only expensive, but the maintenance and
the effectiveness is going to be expensive and questionable.
Part of this process has to include common sense.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would my colleague answer one
question for me.
In the measure that is before us today, is there any money in this
measure to build any kind of fence?
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, there is none. There is no money provided in
this bill. This is purely a political ploy. This again, unfortunately,
proves that the leadership of this House is putting politics ahead of
good policy.
We can do better, we must do better, we must work together. Let's
vote ``no'' on the bill itself, vote ``yes'' on this motion to
recommit.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, this Democratic motion to
recommit solves the problem. We hope we can get support from the
majority of the body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me just state at the outset,
again, the great regard I have for Mr. Thompson and also for Mr. Reyes.
But in that context, I must say that I strongly disagree with their
motion to recommit, primarily because even though this is the Secure
Fence Act of 2006, the motion to recommit nowhere even mentions the
word ``fence.'' And it is significant that they seem unwilling to
address this fundamental issue.
We believe on our side and a solid majority of the House of
Representatives believed last December, and indeed a majority of the
United States Senate believed, that a fence is essential, that a fence
is important. And that is why it was passed last December, that is why
the overwhelming majority of the American people support it today, and
that is why we are bringing it forward now.
The reality is that comprehensive legislation is not going to be
moving. But, again, the American people are crying out; they are
demanding that we take action. This is an issue which goes right to the
heart of America today, whether you live on the border or whether you
live in the north, the Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, it is an issue.
As Members went back to their districts this summer, last spring, the
one issue that resonated completely was the issue of stopping illegal
immigration. One proven way is to build a fence and to get operational
control over the entire border.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. REYES. Our motion to recommit includes physical infrastructure
enhancements; fencing is part of that. There is fencing in there, there
are access roads, there are buildings in there. All of that is included
in there.
Mr. KING of New York. If I could reclaim my time, I do believe that
it is significant that in a fence act, even though fencing was
mentioned in December legislation passed in the House, even though
fencing was mentioned in the Senate bill, there is no reference to it,
which to me is bowing to political correctness. We are up front about
what we are asking for.
Also, I don't believe we should abdicate responsibility to the
Department of Homeland Security. We should make it clear what we want,
tell them what we want. If they want some variations within there,
fine. But we feel so strongly about this, the American people feel so
strongly about it, I believe it is essential that we make it loud and
clear what we do want.
Now, having said that, on the issue, for instance, of Border Patrol
agents, the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 will include 1,200
new Border Patrol agents. That will get us up to 14,580, an increase of
almost 50 percent over the last several years. There are 1,012 new ICE
officers, which will get us up to 11,500. This appears to be about as
many as the system can absorb as we train new officers, and we are
going forward with that. If more are needed, I pledge to the ranking
member we will work to bring that about as we go into the next session.
But it is essential that we do this today to tell the American people
that we have gotten the message, that we are willing to take the action
that is needed, we are willing to go on the line this is needed, this
is essential; and we are calling for it, we are demanding it, we are
voting for it. The easiest way to say that we are going to do the right
thing on illegal immigration, to stop illegal immigration, and also to
be humane and stop the deaths in the desert.
[[Page H6595]]
I was at the desert with Speaker Hastert and Congressman Rush and
Congresswoman Miller this past July, went to Yuma and Nogales in
Arizona, we helicoptered across the desert. To me, a fence is
absolutely essential in certain parts of that border. That is what this
is about. Let's put aside political correctness, let's have the guts to
do the right thing.
I urge defeat of the Democratic motion to recommit and passage of the
underlying bill, H.R. 6061.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 6061, if ordered, and the motion to
instruct on H.R. 2864.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193,
nays 224, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 445]
YEAS--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--224
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Case
Cleaver
Culberson
Davis (FL)
Evans
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Forbes
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Ney
Reynolds
Ryun (KS)
Strickland
Westmoreland
{time} 1531
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. MURPHY, and
Mr. SODREL changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CHANDLER and Mr. CONYERS changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 283,
noes 138, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 446]
AYES--283
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
[[Page H6596]]
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--138
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Clay
Clyburn
Conaway
Conyers
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Kaptur
NOT VOTING--10
Case
Cleaver
Culberson
Davis (FL)
Evans
Forbes
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Ney
Strickland
{time} 1541
Mr. CLYBURN and Mr. EMANUEL changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. RAHALL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated For:
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present at the vote for
H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``aye'' on final passage.
____________________