[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 119 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6061, SECURE FENCE ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 14, 2006

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I am committed to using my best informed 
judgment in deciding how I vote on each bill that comes before the 
House of Representatives.
  My goal for securing the borders is to provide the U.S. Border Patrol 
with the right tools, assets, including fences and vehicle barriers, 
equipment, and number of agents to interdict every person trying to 
illegally cross into our country. We should approach meeting this goal 
in a systematic and thoughtful process. In my judgment, The Secure 
Fence Act does not do this.
  The first step is to thoroughly analyze what is needed along all of 
our borders to meet our goal. At a minimum, the Border Patrol should be 
asked to provide us with what they think in their professional judgment 
is needed to do their job. The Secure Fence Act starts this type of 
analysis as it relates to the northern and maritime borders with the 
requirement that the Department of Homeland Security spend the next 
year developing a rational program for meeting our goal as it relates 
to these borders. As for the southern border, the bill simply requires 
that 700 miles of fencing be built at locations fixed by the bill by 
May 2008.
  The bill set the amount of fencing for the southern border at 700 
miles without properly consulting the Border Patrol, who knows best 
where a fence is needed. A proper analysis of the problem may show that 
we actually need 1,000 miles or it may show us that only 500 miles is 
needed to secure the border. In addition to knowing how much fencing is 
needed and where the fencing will be most effective, we should know how 
much the fencing is going to cost. At the time of the vote, the 
Congressional Budget Office had not determined how much the fencing and 
the other mandates in the bill are going to cost. While cost is not 
necessarily determinative of whether we should proceed, nevertheless it 
is an important consideration that should have been known before we 
voted on the bill.
  The bill designates specifically where the fencing is to be built in 
Texas. The communities where the fence is mandated to be constructed 
should have some input into this bill before the law was passed. Also, 
most of the border between Texas and Mexico is private property. We 
should have known what impact that will have on the cost of 
constructing the fence as well as how much of the property might have 
to be taken via eminent domain proceedings.
  One final note Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to try, 
although we are rarely successful, to work with members of the other 
party when we are developing public policy. Congressman Silvestre 
Reyes, a former Border Patrol sector chief from El Paso, voted against 
the bill, as did Congressmen Henry Cuellar, Ruben Hinojosa, and Solomon 
Ortiz, all of whom represent parts of the border.
  Mr. Speaker, I remain fully committed to securing the border. I am 
also committed to achieving that goal in the best and most cost 
effective manner possible. I will continue to work with my colleagues 
on securing our borders in the weeks ahead. It is important that we get 
it done as quickly as possible, but simply throwing up a costly fence 
without the proper planning is not the answer.

                          ____________________