[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19985-19993]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          IMPORTANT STRATEGIES FOR FIGHTING THE WAR ON TERROR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Turner) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about what 
I believe to be the most difficult and the most important issue facing 
this Congress, a Congress that has the responsibility under the 
Constitution to provide for the common defense, and that problem is the 
threat of international terrorism.
  It has been over 3 years now since the horrific attacks against our 
Nation occurred on September 11. Our world has changed in many respects 
since then. We know that we are engaged in a global war against 
terrorism. New security measures have been put in place at our ports, 
along our borders, and even along the roads leading to our Nation's 
capital. We know now that the circumstances in Arab and Muslim 
countries on the other side of the globe can affect the safety and 
security of all Americans right here at home.
  With our national elections less than 5 weeks away, the American 
people are asking whether we are truly winning this war against our 
terrorist enemies. They want to know whether this government is taking 
the steps necessary to ensure that we are as safe as we need to be.
  The members of the Select Committee on Homeland Security have been 
studying this issue closely for almost 2 years. We have visited our 
ports and our borders. We have heard testimony from hundreds of 
government officials and expert witnesses, and we have met with law 
enforcement and security professionals in our congressional districts. 
My colleagues and I are here tonight to say that, no, we are not as 
safe as we need to be. We say this reluctantly and regretfully, but it 
is our constitutional duty to be honest with our constituents and to 
tell the Nation how it really is.
  Despite the rhetoric that we hear so often from this administration, 
the truth is that our government has not taken the steps necessary to 
provide genuine security from the threat of terrorism, and whether or 
not we are winning the war on terror has yet to be determined.
  Indeed, 2 months ago, the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group 
appointed by this Congress in very important legislation, they drew the 
same conclusion that we draw tonight. That bipartisan report identified 
severe defects in the administration's policies to counteract 
terrorism, many of which were well-known years ago, but have not been 
adequately addressed. Indeed, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report and 
its recommendations are an indictment of this administration's efforts 
over the past 3 years to secure the homeland and to defeat our 
terrorist enemies.
  The 9/11 Commission concluded, as we did in our report called 
``Winning the War on Terror,'' that we must engage on three fronts 
simultaneously. First, we need a more aggressive strategy to attack the 
terrorists directly by using our military and our other national 
security agencies wisely and cutting off the terrorists' source of 
funds. Such an aggressive strategy should ensure that we strengthen our 
intelligence capabilities to penetrate terrorist organizations and 
ensure that we translate and analyze all of the intelligence 
information that we collect in real-time.
  Yesterday, the New York Times revealed in an article that the Justice 
Department's own Inspector General has determined that nearly a quarter 
of all ongoing FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence wiretaps 
are not being monitored and that nearly 120,000 hours of wiretap 
recordings from terrorist investigations since September 11 have not 
even been translated.
  This is unacceptable. This is the same problem that we had before 9/
11. It was one of the key reasons that 9/11 occurred. If we are serious 
in our efforts to attack the terrorists, we must take full advantage of 
the information that is collected by our intelligence agencies. And to 
learn that 3 years after 9/11, our government has yet to get itself in 
a position to be able to translate the intelligence that we are 
collecting, to be able to have the linguists available to make those 
translations occur rapidly is totally unacceptable.
  Additionally, we need to increase our special forces in our military 
to more aggressively attack our terrorist enemies. We must create 
greater numbers of small and light forces that have proved so 
successful in hunting down terrorist cells, and we must dry up the 
sources of funds for the terrorists and for their organizations. We 
must lead an effort to establish international financial standards to 
halt money laundering and to help other countries crack down on 
individuals and organizations who provide money to terrorist groups.
  One may rightfully ask, why has this administration not done these 
things some 3 years after 9/11? The gap between the rhetoric on 
protecting the homeland and the reality of protecting the homeland is 
indeed very great.
  In addition to attacking the terrorists directly, we need to protect 
our homeland by constructing and strengthening the layers of protective 
measures overseas, at our borders, at our airports, our seaports, and 
our critical infrastructures like the nuclear and chemical plants that 
are targeted by our terrorist enemies.
  As an example, we must commit the necessary resources and take 
constructive steps with our allies to ensure that our dangerous nuclear 
and radiological materials are safe and secure overseas and do not 
threaten us here at home. We must ensure that we install the radiation 
portal detectors at our ports to ensure that a weapon of mass 
destruction cannot be shipped into our country on an 18-wheeler or in a 
cargo container coming off a ship at one of our seaports.
  It is unacceptable that 3 years after 9/11 we still have not 
installed sufficient radiation portal detectors to know that this 
country is safe from our terrorist enemies bringing a nuclear bomb or a 
radiological device into our country. We must move much faster to 
protect our borders, to protect our ports, to secure our airports, our 
airplanes, and improve the capabilities of our Nation's first 
responders; and we must ensure that we can protect our citizens from 
the threat of bioterrorism, one of the most serious threats that we 
face today and increasingly will face in the years ahead.
  As we aggressively fight our terrorist enemies, as we work to improve 
our homeland security, we must also engage in the third prong of making 
America safe as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. We must create a 
political, a social, and an economic strategy for this country to 
engage the Arab and

[[Page 19986]]

Muslim nations to prevent the rise of future terrorists. Many observers 
who have looked closely at the war on terror acknowledge very freely 
that we cannot win the war on terror with military power alone. It will 
take all the tools in our national arsenal to defeat al Qaeda and our 
terrorist enemies.
  It is clear that we cannot coexist with our terrorist enemies. We 
cannot bridge over our differences with al Qaeda, but we must be aware 
of the nature of the current ideological struggle that is going on and 
is very much a part of the war on terror. We must know our enemies, we 
must understand what motivates them, and then we must support 
initiatives to rob them of that support.
  To prevent the rise of future terrorists, we must first pursue 
policies that promote and support the voices of moderation in the 
Middle East and offer an alternative vision of hope for the millions of 
people, particularly young people, who today are appealed to by the 
message of bin Laden and al Qaeda.
  Secondly, we must promote and support democratic institutions and 
practices worldwide, making it possible for democracy to rise in those 
places in the world where it does not currently exist. We must have the 
wisdom to recognize that democracy cannot be forced upon others; but it 
must be the result of people willingly, freely choosing liberty for 
themselves. We must launch an economic development partnership in the 
Arab and Muslim world that is in the spirit of the Marshall Plan that 
followed the Second World War. I would call this effort a renaissance 
partnership, for it would lead to a rebirth of prosperity and a new 
spirit of openness and tolerance in the Middle East. People without 
hope, people without the chance for a better way of life, they are the 
ones who respond to the ideology and to the message of the terrorists. 
We can change the world, but we must do so by engaging the world, by 
uniting with our allies in the rich Arab States to improve the 
conditions of the Muslim and Arab world.
  All three of these tasks, going after the terrorists more 
aggressively, securing the homeland better than we are doing today, and 
preventing the rise of future terrorists, must be the principal focus 
of our national efforts to win the war on terror. Unfortunately, we do 
not have a comprehensive strategy in place today to deal with these 
elements in the war on terror, and that is why today we are not as safe 
as we need to be.
  Tonight I will be joined by some of my colleagues on the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security and other Members who have played a 
leading role in homeland security issues in this House. We will discuss 
what we need to do to fight a smarter, a stronger, and a more effective 
war against terrorism. We will talk about the security gaps facing our 
Nation and our ideas for closing them.
  We know that our terrorist enemies are not waiting. They continue to 
plot. They continue to scheme to attack America. We must have a sense 
of urgency, for the time to act is now; and we cannot wait any longer.

                              {time}  2115

  I am pleased to yield to the distinguished delegate from the Virgin 
Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who has been a leader on the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security on the issues of bioterrorism and public 
health preparedness. Her background in the medical field has enabled 
her to have unique insights into what we need to be doing as a Nation 
to be better prepared to deal with the threats it faces.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner) for yielding, and I want to thank him for his leadership and 
for bringing us here this evening. I am pleased to join him and other 
Members of our committee to call attention to the glaring deficiencies 
in homeland security, which continue to exist now more than 3 years 
after the attacks of 9/11, and the failures of the administration in 
this regard.
  I do not call attention to them to cause alarm but to continue to put 
pressure on the administration and the Department to address what every 
commission or task force has told us even before that fateful day, and 
what polls show is the primary concern of Americans, our safety and the 
safety of our children, our protection from terrorism.
  I am going to focus on the area of bioterrorism, and we can all agree 
that the threat of biological attack is a very real one.
  Indeed, we have seen biologic agents used in this very building 
against our colleagues and those who work here. We also witnessed the 
differences in public health response here and in our neighboring 
communities, especially communities of color where several people died.
  At committee meeting after committee meeting, we called the attention 
of this administration and the department to the fact that our public 
health system is inadequate in many areas; that the disparities in 
health care reflect this; and that many, especially in the private 
sector of medicine, are not trained or prepared to respond adequately 
in the case of an attack. Yet we still lag behind in these critical 
areas.
  First of all, the health sector is not yet as fully incorporated as 
it should be in all areas of planning, and the development of systems 
that are important to the protection of our citizens.
  Just this morning, we heard from Dr. Joseph Barbera of the George 
Washington University Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk 
Management, at a subcommittee hearing on the National Incident 
Management System, the very core of our response.
  In his statement, the fact that he saw it necessary to stress to us 
that ``medical care necessary for a mass casualty event must be 
recognized as a public safety function and therefore as a governmental 
responsibility that is equal in importance to fire suppression, 
emergency medical services, public works and law enforcement,'' the 
fact that he had to tell us, that speaks volumes about where this 
expert sees our state of readiness in this critical area. It is not 
where it should be.
  I can tell my colleagues that in too many instances, health, both 
public and private, are not included. This while 62 percent of 
emergency rooms are over capacity and public health laboratories are 
reportedly operating at an average of 75 percent above capacity.
  The funding that this administration has supplied to address these 
deficiencies is far below the estimated $10 billion that is reportedly 
needed to bring just the public health sector to where it needs to be. 
We have not begun to scratch the surface.
  Another aspect of bioterrorism preparedness which this administration 
and the Department has failed to adequately address is the need to 
develop the capacity to rapidly diagnose and develop treatments for any 
agents that might be used.
  In May, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and I introduced the 
Rapid Cures Act which would promote technological advancements to 
reduce the time frame from several years to a few months at the most 
for the development of new medical countermeasures to treat or prevent 
disease caused by not only agents of bioterrorism but disease agents or 
toxins that have the potential to plague our communities today.
  SARS has shown us that we cannot know or predict what will be used. 
In that respect, Project Bioshield is not helpful. This bill gets to 
the heart of the matter and develops capacity that is more of the all-
hazards approach that Governor Gilmore and many others have so strongly 
recommended.
  We need to have protection and treatment against dangerous biological 
agents that might be used in an attack quickly, not in the 10 or 15 
years it is now estimated to take. That bill has not even had a hearing 
yet.
  Lastly, the administration has pretty much ignored the role of the 
public. They have not been brought into the discussion or development 
of the systems to the extent they need to be.
  In every town meeting that I have had, I have heard critiques of what 
has been promulgated, and I have been

[[Page 19987]]

asked how they can participate in developing the preparedness and the 
response. We ignore them at the potential peril of all of us.
  One of the most important things that is needed in a disaster or any 
emergency is for people to follow instructions. If they do not, they 
put themselves and all of us at risk.
  Just in the last few weeks, we saw people who clearly knew what their 
instructions were out in the ocean or not evacuating their homes, and 
that was in a relatively familiar disaster.
  To date, most of the public are unclear about what they are to do in 
the case of the different forms of possible terrorism attacks.
  On September 14, the New York Academy of Medicine's Center for the 
Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health along with the Joint 
Center for Economic and Political Study released a groundbreaking 
report entitled Redefining Readiness: Terrorism Planning through the 
Eyes of the Public.
  The New York Academy of Sciences found that only two-fifths of the 
American people would follow instructions to get vaccinated in the 
event of a smallpox outbreak. In addition, it stated that only three-
fifths of the American people would shelter in place for as long as 
told in a dirty bomb explosion.
  One reason for the lack of cooperation is that many people would be 
also worried about something other than what the planners are trying to 
protect them from. Three-fifths of the American people would have 
serious worries about the smallpox vaccine itself, and that is twice as 
many people as would be seriously worried about getting smallpox in the 
outbreak.
  What we find in the case of the public is that the administration and 
the Department, as they have done too often in the case of first 
responders, have assumed that they knew what was best, or what was 
needed, instead of letting the people, in this case, speak for 
themselves, participate in the process of developing the strategies and 
the plan. On something this important, there must be a methodology in 
place to do this. Three years later, there is none.
  First responders, all of them must be fully engaged in the process 
and so must the public.
  This administration has spent too much time assembling a bureaucracy, 
one that does not even reflect the diversity of the country which it 
protects and too little time on putting the kinds of protections in 
place to be able to begin to claim the security high ground.
  Two weeks ago, senators released a report card on this 
administration's progress in homeland security. While many other areas 
got a C to an F, bioterrorism actually got a B. The grade has to be 
much lower than that. Too much remains unaddressed. I would give them 
at best a C minus, and below average is not good enough for protecting 
us and our families. They have a lot more that needs to be done to 
ensure that we are as protected as we can be from a bioterrorism 
attack.
  We know that there is no way to be 100 percent safe, but the White 
House has fought us, the Democrats particularly, on almost every step 
of the way to get to even where we are today. It has not provided the 
kind of leadership that is required, and it has certainly not lived up 
to its promises.
  As a result, today, we are not as safe as we ought to be 3 years 
after that horrific wake-up call.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for yielding to me and 
giving me the opportunity to be included in this special order. I thank 
him again for his leadership on the committee.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much. 
I thank her again for her leadership on this issue.
  Next, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Lowey), another member of the House Select Committee on Homeland 
Security, a lady who has shown not only leadership on our committee on 
behalf of homeland security but great leadership on the House Committee 
on Appropriations. She has also worked vigorously to protect her State 
from the threat of terrorism, the great State of New York. So it is a 
pleasure to yield to her.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Texas 
for his leadership on this committee. He worked so hard and helped us 
put together a really outstanding plan. It is unfortunate that because 
of various interactivities of the Republican leadership that we have 
not been able to take this plan to the finish line, but I personally 
want to thank him for his important contributions in helping us work 
towards a plan that would help keep America safe. So I thank him so 
very much for his important leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, it really amazes me that more than 3 years after 
September 11, we are still talking about gaps in our Nation's strategy 
to protect against and prepare for another terrorist attack.
  Several of my colleagues from the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security have already highlighted ways in which we can improve port and 
rail security; how can we better prepare public health communities to 
deal with a biological attack; and how to protect and secure our 
borders. We all agree that more needs to be done and must be done and 
that Congress should not go home without addressing each of these 
critical issues.
  In my judgment, this administration and this Congress need to beef up 
their efforts to provide for first responders. Local police, 
firefighters, EMS technicians need information. They need training. 
They need the life-saving equipment necessary to protect them from the 
dangers they face every day.
  I was appalled when I read in yesterday's New York Times that more 
than 120,000 hours of potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings 
had not yet been translated by linguists at the FBI. This is outrageous 
and particularly dangerous, especially for the residents of my home 
State of New York, which is referenced in intelligence reports time and 
time again.
  How can we expect first responders to be able to adequately prepare 
for an attack when the Federal Government does not even have the 
capability to analyze and share with them the intelligence information 
it has collected? We can and we must do better.
  As I travel throughout my district and speak with first responders, 
like Chief John Kapica from the town of Greenburgh, Chief Robert Breen 
from the town of New Castle, Chief Robert D'Angelo from the town of 
North Castle and all the other chiefs with whom I have been working 
closely, they all tell me that implementing an interoperable 
communications system is one of their highest priorities and that they 
have not received nearly enough guidance, support or resources to 
achieve this goal.
  The 9/11 Commission report confirms that, despite the heroic efforts 
and experience of first responders, communications deficiency and lack 
of interoperable systems among police, firefighters and other rescue 
agencies hindered their response at the World Trade Center.
  Eight years ago, let me repeat, 8 years ago, the final report of the 
Federal Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee concluded that, 
``unless immediate measures are taken to promote interoperability, 
public safety agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their 
obligation to protect life and property in a safe, efficient and cost-
effective manner.''
  Now, forgive me if I sound impatient or even extraordinarily angry, 
but I am. With nearly every major study and report on homeland security 
concluding that lack of interoperability remains one of the most 
serious issues facing first responders in this country, I just simply 
cannot understand why this administration has done little more than pay 
lip service to the seriousness of this issue.
  With estimates for implementing a nationwide interoperable 
communications infrastructure ranging anywhere from $7 billion to $18 
billion, local governments and first-responder agencies cannot be 
expected to pick up the tab without significant help from the Federal 
Government.

[[Page 19988]]

  Some of my colleagues may argue that current homeland security grants 
can be used to upgrade communications systems. While this may be true, 
the costs are so enormous, there simply is not enough money to go 
around. In my judgment, we are forcing our communities to make 
impossible decisions on how to use these funds.

                              {time}  2130

  That is why I joined with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner), to introduce the CONNECT First Responders Act. This 
legislation establishes a Federal interoperability office and creates a 
new $5 billion DHS grant program dedicated to helping States and 
localities achieve communications interoperability.
  I understand that Secretary Tom Ridge recently announced the creation 
of an Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, with similar goals 
to the office that we propose in the legislation. I am pleased that the 
Department has taken this important step, and I am glad that our 
legislation may have encouraged those efforts.
  We have learned the hard way that, at best, gaps in communications 
hamper rescue efforts; and at worst, they can lead to the loss of life 
for emergency personnel and victims. Our communities should not have to 
wait 2 years or 5 years from now until another disaster strikes to get 
the help they need to close this glaring and unnecessary gap in our 
Nation's security. Our first responders served us with honor and 
distinction on September 11 and every day before and since, and they 
deserve better.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to once again thank my good 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and my other 
colleagues on the committee, as well as the staff for all their work in 
putting together a plan that really can win the war on terror.
  We are, in America, at risk. As the mother of three and the 
grandmother of six, I worry every day about the future of my community 
and about the future of this great country of ours. We are talking 
about a complete overhaul of our intelligence system. Yes, they may be 
part of it, but there are specific actions that we can take right now. 
Shame on us if we do not move forward on the recommendations that can 
be implemented as we speak.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas again for his 
leadership.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York for her comments and her leadership.
  Next, Madam Speaker, I wish to yield the floor to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a distinguished Member of this House who 
has worked diligently on our committee, who not only is a good 
legislator but a fine gentleman and is very committed to implementing 
the third prong of the war on terror as recommended by the 9/11 
Commission, which is preventing the rise of future terrorism.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank my friends and colleagues, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak), for leading this Special Order. I especially want to recognize 
the work of the gentleman from Texas as our ranking member on the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security. Your colleagues and all 
Americans owe you a great debt of gratitude for your consistent valiant 
efforts to keep these critical issues at the forefront of the national 
debate.
  Madam Speaker, there is no question about the importance of our 
efforts here at home to improve domestic security and preparedness, but 
I want to spend my time this evening addressing a topic that I think 
deserves equal attention, mainly the need for a full-scale global 
effort to enhance the image of America in the world and prevent the 
rise in recruitment of future terrorists. I think we often overlook 
this aspect of Homeland Security, perhaps because it is not as 
tangible, or the path is not as clear-cut, or perhaps because success 
is harder to measure. But we do so at our own peril and at the peril of 
countless future generations.
  Dr. Joe Nye, the former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at 
Harvard and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 
Security Affairs, has talked about the need to supplement our military 
might with soft power, efforts to win the world's hearts and minds with 
our values and culture. Successfully exercising this type of power 
requires that we pursue many fronts, including international diplomacy, 
democracy building, cultural exchanges, economic development, 
educational initiatives, and communication about our values and our 
ideals.
  Now, most people do not give this strategy the attention it deserves, 
but I am pleased that the 9/11 Commission report recognized that soft 
power will be a critical component in our long-term efforts to stop the 
spread of Islamist terrorism.
  It is easy to say that we were attacked on September 11 because the 
terrorists despise freedom and hate the American way of life, but the 
truth is much more complicated, and we do ourselves a disservice if we 
accept the simple answer.
  To win the ideological battle being waged in the world today, we have 
to offer an alternative to the hopelessness and despair that the likes 
of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda prey upon. Madam Speaker, there are 
millions of young people in the Islamic world who are hungry for hope 
and opportunity, and it is in our interest to show them that hope lies 
in freedom, liberty, and democracy, not in extremism and hate.
  By pursuing policies abroad that promote voices of moderation, we can 
isolate the extremists and present a better vision of the future. By 
promoting democratic institutions, we can show that there is a better 
way, and we can offer a choice. By supporting economic development 
partnerships in the Arab world, we can help these nations become 
prosperous and self-sufficient. And by spearheading an international 
effort to offer educational alternatives to children in the Muslim 
world, we can provide the next generation with the tools to build a 
better future. These efforts will require significant resources, but 
the payoff will be immeasurable.
  Perhaps most importantly, we must show the world what America and 
Americans truly stand for: tolerance, opportunity, hope, and freedom. 
And we must do it quickly, before an inaccurate image is indelibly 
emblazoned on the minds of millions. As the 9/11 Commission so 
eloquently put it, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. If 
the U.S. does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic 
world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, let me again thank our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) for bringing us to the floor this evening to discuss these 
critical issues. September 11 should have made clear to all of us that 
we do not have the luxury of time when it comes to addressing our 
security at home and abroad. I urge the President and his 
administration to exercise strong leadership and provide the necessary 
resources to ensure the safety of our citizens and our Nation.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, next I would like to yield to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a gentleman who is most active on 
behalf of the first responders across our country or those on the front 
lines in the war on terror. He is a gentleman who serves on our 
Democratic Task Force on Homeland Security, a gentleman who is most 
respected by all of his colleagues in this House, and who has served 
here for many years with distinction.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
efforts and for leading our intelligence task force in all the work we 
have been doing here under the gentleman's leadership on this issue, 
along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the gentlewoman 
from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), who we will hear from next.
  Having been in law enforcement for many years, and having founded the

[[Page 19989]]

Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus here, we are now looking at the 
third anniversary of September 11, and the question on many Americans' 
minds is: Are we safer? Is America safer today than we were on 9/11? 
The current administration says we are safer. The Republican leadership 
in Congress says we are safer. But just because they say we are safer, 
does not make it so.
  For instance, when we are talking about our northern border, I come 
from Michigan and I border Canada. President Bush said on January 25, 
2002, ``We are analyzing every aspect of the border and making sure 
that the effort is seamless, the communication is real, that the law 
enforcement is strong.'' He also said on February 2, one week later, 
``We are focusing on the heroic efforts of those first-time responders. 
That's why we want to spend money to make sure the equipment is there, 
strategies are there, communications are there to make sure that you 
have whatever it takes to respond.''
  The Bush administration has mastered the rhetoric. They talk a great 
game about homeland security, but the numbers reveal a stark reality. 
Here are a few points: we are 2,000 border patrol officers short along 
the northern border with Canada, and the President's budget request 
fails to include additional funding to make these border patrol 
officers a reality.
  Only 5 percent of passenger planes are screened for explosives, 
according to the GAO. And the President wants to cut the number of air 
marshals by 20 percent this year.
  Our maritime security efforts are severely understaffed and 
underfunded, allowing us to screen only 5 percent of the nearly 8 
million seaborne containers entering the U.S. each year, and $7.5 
billion is needed over the next 10 years in order to secure our ports 
and waterways. The Bush administration has distributed a mere $441 
million for this purpose.
  This year's budget is the first time the Bush administration has ever 
asked for any port security grant money. Without the Bush 
administration's support, Congress has provided only $587 million for 
port security since 2001. That is less than 10 percent of the money we 
need to do the job.
  The President has cut overall funding for adequate protective gear 
and training for first responders. And this year is no different. He 
proposed more than a 20 percent cut in first responder training and 
State grants for training, equipment, and other homeland security 
needs. More than 40 percent of our Nation's firefighters have not 
received training for responding to nuclear, biological, or 
radiological attack.
  Finally, national reports on the 9/11 emergency response found that 
the inability of our first responders from different agencies to talk 
to one another was a key factor in the deaths of at least 121 New York 
firefighters at the World Trade Center.
  The independent 9/11 Commission report said ``funding interoperable 
communications should be a Federal priority.'' Here is what they said, 
the 9/11 report says: ``The inability to communicate was a critical 
element of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Somerset County, 
Pennsylvania, crash sites, where multiple agencies and multiple 
jurisdictions responded. The occurrence of this problem at three very 
different sites is strong evidence that compatible and adequate 
communications among public safety organizations at the State, local, 
and Federal levels remain an important problem. Federal funding for 
such interagency,'' interoperability as we call it, ``units should be 
given high priority.''
  Here is what the President said: ``It is important that we understand 
in the first minutes and hours after attack. That is the most hopeful 
time to save life, and that is why we are focusing on the heroic 
efforts of those first-time responders. That is why we want to spend 
money to make sure equipment is there, strategies are there, 
communications are there to make sure you have whatever you need to 
respond.''
  Strong language from the 9/11 Commission; strong language from the 
President. The reality is what it costs to get interoperability going 
in this country 3 years later is $18 billion. What has President Bush 
requested since 2003? He has requested $100 million.
  The President even has zeroed out these accounts in the Department of 
Homeland Security budget over the past 2 years. At the rate we are 
going, according to the Department of Homeland Security officials, it 
will be another 20 years before our Nation's first responders are 
interoperable, where they can talk to each other, communicate with each 
other. Madam Speaker, we do not have 20 years to wait.
  Earlier this year, on this floor, I asked how much in the formula 
grants provided for State homeland security has gone to 
interoperability. The Department of Homeland Security could not tell 
me. They committed to let Congress know the answer soon. We have 
recently found out that it is going to be about another year before we 
can even get an answer as to where the money has been spent, if it has 
been spent at all on interoperability. That does not say much about the 
oversight or planning in the Department of Homeland Security, and about 
where the billions of dollars of State grant formula money is going.
  Madam Speaker, the problems I have outlined are occurring because of 
a lack of commitment on this administration to homeland security. Even 
the Department of Homeland Security still has not hired some 30 percent 
of the needed staff to properly run the agency. The homeland security 
challenges we face, whether it is border, airline, rail, or port 
security all require the same approach: real solutions instead of 
rhetoric, real resources and not political pronouncements.
  Day after day we are told our Nation is better prepared against a 
terrorist attack than it was 3 years ago; but when only 4,000 Americans 
guard a border over 4,000 miles long, I cannot agree our Nation's 
northern border is secure. When our ports are not secured from the 
entry of a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack, I cannot take the 
word of anyone when they tell me my family and constituents are well 
protected.

                              {time}  2145

  And there is no comfort in the fact that our first responders are no 
closer now than they were after 9/11 to be able to talk to each other 
in times of natural disaster or terrorist attack. So how safe are we? 
The administration points to the toppling of Saddam Hussein. That does 
not make it. How does that make us safer when he was not an imminent 
threat, when there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we have 
diverted so much of our military and intelligence operations to Iraq. 
Osama bin Laden is still out there. Iraq is now a haven for new 
terrorist groups. Our country internationally is hated more than ever. 
We have alienated our allies, so exactly, how are we safer?
  In the meantime, the current administration and the Republican 
Congress refuse to give our local, State and Federal agencies what they 
need to protect our borders and our communities. We will not even give 
them the equipment to talk to each other. On these issues, sure the 
present administration has mastered the rhetoric, but when looking at 
facts, we are dangerously behind in securing our borders to help 
prevent another attack or be ready when one comes.
  As head of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, we are going to 
have a hearing next week on intra operability. There are technologies 
which could be implemented today where police officers, State, local, 
and Federal, could talk to each other because of software developed by 
some of these companies. It is there. We should not have to wait more 
than 3 years after 9/11 for something as simple as allowing people to 
talk to each other. We hope we do not have another terrorist attack, 
but if we do, maybe we can tell those brave first responders, say, with 
the second building at the World Trade Center, the building is about 
ready to come down, get out. We could have saved 120 lives if we had 
the ability to communicate. Having been involved with law enforcement 
for over 30 years, it is time to look at reality. This administration 
is not doing the job. We

[[Page 19990]]

are not safer at home than we were before, at, during or after 9/11.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for 
heading up our homeland security task force in our committee, and I 
look forward to working together in the future. Maybe together we can 
convince this Congress and the American people something as simple as 
first responders being able to talk to each other would save so many 
lives if we only had a commitment. I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership.
  Mr. TURNER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his leadership and for his conviction.
  I think many of us are dismayed by the lack of preparedness 3 years 
after 9/11 at a time when our government tells us every day that we are 
faced with another terrorist threat, even estimating that we may be 
attacked between now and the election or between now and the end of the 
year. These are deadly, serious matters. I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his leadership and for his hard work on 
behalf of first responders and on behalf of the security of our 
country.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield the floor to my friend, my 
fellow Texan, fellow member of the Committee on Homeland Security, from 
the great city of Houston, and I have seen the gentlewoman work on 
behalf of first responders in her great city. I have seen her talk to 
the many citizens who gather at her town meetings to discuss their 
concerns about security. I have seen her visit the port of Houston and 
the FBI office in Houston to talk about security. I know of her 
dedication and leadership, and it is a pleasure to yield to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for gathering us today. In fact, let me add my accolades 
for the extensive work, the serious work that has been the defining 
track record of the gentleman's leadership as the ranking member of the 
Committee on Homeland Security, and certainly, it has been, as the 
staff you have guided, as you have guided us as members of that 
committee.
  Madam Speaker, there could not be more appropriate timing for this 
Special Order to speak to our colleagues, and certainly to bring 
attention to this very serious issue to the American people because, as 
the gentleman knows, many of us spent a good part of the day marking up 
legislation that pretends to be the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission.
  I think that if the wisdom of the gentleman's staff and leadership 
could have been exercised in the process, we would have had a full, 
comprehensive legislative initiative that would have addressed the 
concerns of the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 families, and also put 
together a fair package that would have responded to some of the needs 
that have been addressed. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner), and I would like to start by referring first of all to the 
document that was prepared, Transforming the Southern Border, Providing 
Security and Prosperity in the Post-9/11 World, done by the staff, 
mentioning the gentleman's leadership and that of the committee.
  I would like to read directly out of it because this sets the tone 
for the remarks that I would like to make on the southern border, and I 
appreciate joining the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentlewoman from the 
Virgin Islands (Ms. Christensen) to talk about all of the issues, and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) just mentioned the northern 
border, and I come to focus on the southern border, but I do so with 
the point that we have friends to the south. Mexico is a friend. Many 
Central American states are friends. South American states, our 
neighbors, are friends, and we speak about security in the context of 
friendship because I actually believe if we are going to be secure, it 
must be a collaborative effort.
  Let me cite remarks on page 23: Infrastructure at the southern border 
ports of entry cannot effectively handle hundreds of millions of 
inspections annually. In addition, the southern border's infrastructure 
cannot support the implementation of new border security programs 
without harming the economies of border communities. There is a need to 
balance the competing tension between screening people and vehicles for 
terrorist weapons, contraband, smuggled immigrants and other prohibited 
items with the need to ensure an efficient flow of commerce.
  Substantial investment in border infrastructure is needed to ensure 
national security while sustaining economic prosperity caused by 
increased cross-border trade over the last 10 years.
  That is what we have been saying. The reason why these issues are so 
important is, we have not been able to balance the needs that are so 
very important, between free trade opportunities and the idea of 
security. There are 509 official ports of entry in the United States, 
including land, airports and seaports. Of these, 166 are land ports of 
entry, 43 of which are located on the southern border. These southern 
border ports are equipped with 86 pedestrian lanes, 216 passenger 
vehicle lanes and 70 cargo lanes. These ports of entry are generally 
large facilities with high volumes of vehicular and commercial traffic.
  This lays out just a photographic story of the kinds of challenges we 
have at the length of the border, the kinds of challenges we have at 
the border, and what we need of course is to have the skilled 
technocrats and law enforcement that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol 
agents allow us to do. It is important to recognize in balancing these 
issues that we must do something. What have we done, in the committee 
that we are members of, we have done not as much as we should. Homeland 
security will not work if local communities are not consulted on border 
security policies, their cooperation is not sought, or if 
implementation of border security programs is not coordinated. Homeland 
security will not work if we are force-feeding border security policies 
as opposed to collaborating with the community.
  I joined the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) along with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) to look at border control issues, and 
that was one of the main points addressed. That is to work with those 
local officials who live right on the border and let them tell us the 
kinds of concerns that they have. One was not only dealing with the 
lack of security measures there, in terms of the number of border 
patrol agents, but we also found out that there really is a need for 
changing policies and laws that allow some of those who have been 
detained to simply walk away because we do not have the legal 
procedures to hold them.
  I want to make sure that all of the oversight issues are taken care 
of, such as making sure that there is judicial process; for these 
detainees to go through that process; making sure there are lawyers 
there to help with those processes and see that they are fair. But at 
the same time, we cannot have a secure border if we are allowing 
individuals to simply walk away because there is no place for them to 
be held. So more detainee facilities need to be there, adequately 
equipped, and the border patrol agents need to be well-trained.
  The bottom line is that we must secure the borders by having the 
resources placed appropriately there. We also cannot ignore President 
Vicente Fox. Just 2 years ago, President Bush spoke about immigration 
reform and has done nothing to ensure that happening. That allows 
President Fox to talk about having the borders in the manner that he 
wants them in, and that certainly does not match the needs of this 
Nation. We must have collaboration, but we must have a fixed 
understanding of how we can continue to have cooperation but not have 
the kind of systems that other nations want us to have.
  First, international cooperation is critical, as I indicated, to an 
effective border security, and that means working with President Fox 
and Mexico to make sure what we have works for all of us. We must work 
with our neighbors to the north and south. Many of

[[Page 19991]]

the border solutions require the cooperation by neighbors to 
effectively implement. Second, we must ensure that security at the 
border is delivered in a manner that enhances and enforces our 
priorities. The foundations on which our security programs are built, 
how they are implemented and how the borders are staffed, all of these 
factors must be taken into account, along with the security and 
economic interests of those living in the border region.
  We have U.S. customs. As I watched them go through the many ports of 
entry, not enough staff. Technology, not enough technology at the 
borders. We have just been able to secure the opportunities for 
children to be detained in other facilities, but again, large numbers 
of unaccompanied children coming into the United States, no real 
resources to handle them. So we are finding ourselves caught between 
what is a rock and a hard place.
  We need, again, as I have mentioned over and over again, additional 
technology. We need to have the kind of ability to survey the various 
trucks that are coming in, and so we need to be able to use the new 
technology to be able to survey trucks without actually going into the 
trucks. We have seen that kind of technology at our various seaports.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about doing something. That is what this 
Special Order has been. We are talking about the great needs of 
infrastructure. Let me also suggest that I hope this Special Order will 
argue for the continuation of the Committee on Homeland Security in the 
next Congress. The reason why we bring these matters to the attention 
of our colleagues is because we have heard over and over again from 
Secretary Ridge that he wants a focused authorizing body where he can 
address the concerns of homeland security in a fair and orderly way.
  We have spoken about the ideas of first responders. We have talked 
about the need of medicine and emergency response, and the idea of 
dealing with the needs that will occur if there is a terrorist attack, 
and we have talked about intraoperability and then the question of 
border security. None of these issues have been fully addressed in the 
select committee because we have either not had the time or wherewithal 
by the majority to follow through. It is crucial that this committee 
continues, but it is more crucial that we do things, and the way that 
we must do things to adequately ensure the security of this country is 
we must do it in a very bipartisan manner.

                              {time}  2200

  The number of legislative initiatives that the ranking member has 
helped us forge over the 2 years of the existence of this committee, I 
would hope that these items will find a place in the legislative 
history of this Congress. I hope they will be passed. I certainly hope 
the Secure Borders Act, which my colleague, Ranking Member Turner, 
introduced last week articulates a consensus approach to border 
security. I hope by some miracle that we might even pass it if not at 
the end of this session, in the lame duck that we are more than likely 
to have.
  The idea is, Madam Speaker, that security is not a lonely task. It is 
a task that requires us to work together in an honest and open 
dialogue. It requires us to pay attention to the work that has already 
been done. Seven to 12 million illegal aliens enter into the United 
States. We can do this. We can make a difference. We can do this by 
passing border security legislation. We can do this by working with the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security.
  My final point would be, we can do this recognizing we need complete 
immigration reform such that we deal with those illegal documents that 
are already here, by providing them earned access to legalization and 
family reunification. We can do that in a parallel track. I would only 
say, Madam Speaker, the question is why? Why have we not done this? Why 
have we not been able after the 9/11 tragedy to come together around 
concrete, effective, important legislative initiatives as offered by 
the ranking member and the Democrats on the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security. The question is why? The response should be if not 
now, then when? When are we going to address America's security needs? 
I hope that we will do it soon. I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
his time and effort.

        Special Orders--Border Security--Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee


                              introduction

  As a Representative from Texas--a border State--I am deeply concerned 
about the state of homeland security at our land borders. My 
constituents--the good people of Texas--and those in border States 
across America--understand better than anyone in Washington what our 
unique challenges are along the land borders.
  Living in isolation has never been an option for us. We all know the 
cost of shutting down that border--political, economic, social and 
cultural. We are all united in wanting to keep our borders working--to 
make sure that legitimate travelers and cargo are not held up but that 
we do not let in those who would harm us.
  When there is a threat to our country, it is our constituents and 
businesses that are on the front-lines. Whatever comes into our 
country--be it a crate of bananas or weapons of mass destruction, be it 
a tourist come to spend some money in Houston or a terrorist seeking to 
do us harm--our constituents feel it first.
  In the aftermath of September 11th, we all agree that security is and 
always must be our Nation's highest priority. There is no balancing act 
as some might suggest. Balancing involves competing interests and a 
give on all sides. We will and must not balance our Nation's security 
against competing interests. Rather, we must ensure that the border 
security solution that SECURES also serves to FACILITATE trade and 
travel.
  Additionally, local and international buy in to border security 
solutions is critical if we want a system of border management that 
works. Hoemland security will not work if local communities are not 
consulted on border securities policies, if their cooperation is not 
sought, or if implementation of border security programs is not 
coordinated. Homeland security will not work if we are force feeding 
border security policies on the very communities that rely on the 
border for the economic livelihood.
  The bottom line but the key to whether we successfully secure our 
borders is how we choose to go about doing it. It isn't just that we 
need to secure our country and our borders, but it's important how we 
deliver that security.
  First, international cooperation is critical to effective border 
security. We must work with our neighbors to the north and south. Many 
of the border security solutions, such as US-VISIT, require the 
cooperation of our neighbors to effectively implement.
  Second, we must ensure that security at the border is delivered in a 
manner that enhances and fosters other border and national priorities. 
How border security programs are designed, the foundations on which 
they are built, how they are implemented and how the borders are 
staffed--all of these factors must take into account the security and 
economic interests of those living in the border region. This is not 
about balancing competing interests, rather it means that the 
implementation of security at our borders must be done in a manner that 
fosters and enhances other border and national priorities.
  Democrats believe that to secure our borders we must make a long term 
investment in our border communities.
  We must make a substantial investment in infrastructure improvements 
at our ports of entry and to the transportation corridors that flow 
into those ports of entry. According to a report issued by the DHS's 
own Data Management Improvement Act Task Force, many approach highways 
and border inspection facilities were considered inadequate and 
overburdened prior to 9/11.
  Additionally, with infrastructure expansion, we must add inspectors 
to our land ports of entry and ensure that they receive necessary 
training in foreign languages, fraudulent document detection and in 
interviewing techniques.
  While technology is not a cure all, we must invest in technology that 
will both secure and facilitate the inspections process.
  The Secure Borders Act which my colleagues and Introduced last week 
articulates a consensus approach to border security. While it was 
introduced by Democrats, it is a bill that everyone can and should 
support.
  Lastly, what our Nation needs is a honest and open dialogue on 
comprehensive immigration reform--something Congress has been avoiding 
for years. As we invest in securing our borders, we must look at 
solving the issue of the estimated 7-12 million illegal aliens who

[[Page 19992]]

call the U.S. home. After 9/11, having such a large number of people 
live in the shadows of society is even more unacceptable. We must 
review proposals that encourage these people to step forward. And we 
must at the same time enhance Federal enforcement of our immigration 
laws.

                Section Summary--The SECURE Borders Act

       The SECURE Border Act is designed to implement the 
     recommendations of the report, Transforming the Southern 
     Border, issued by Representative Jim Turner, the Ranking 
     Member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. The bill 
     seeks to close the security gaps that exist on the Southern 
     Border that were identified in the report.

                     TITLE I--SECURING OUR BORDERS

                Subtitle A--Infrastructure Enhancements

     Sec. 101--Creation of a Land Border Infrastructure 
         Improvement Fund
       This provision authorizes $1 billion for an infrastructure 
     investment fund to enhance and facilitate security and 
     commerce at our nation's ports of entry. The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security is authorized to carry out infrastructure 
     improvement projects recommended in the report submitted 
     under Section 102.
     Sec. 102--Requiring a Vulnerability Assessment of Land Border 
         Ports of Entry
       This provision requires an assessment of and a report on 
     the vulnerability of our nation's ports of entry to terrorist 
     attack, the infrastructure and technology improvements needed 
     based on the level of risk posed by vulnerabilities at the 
     ports of entry, and follow up assessments every two years to 
     monitor progress in securing ports of entry. Funds authorized 
     in Section 101 should be distributed based on assessed 
     priority.
     Sec. 103--Enhancing SENTRI, FAST and NEXUS Pre-Enrollment 
         Programs
       This provision expresses the Sense of Congress that pre-
     enrollment programs should be expanded to every major port of 
     entry, and authorizes pre-enrollment programs, the creation 
     of pre-enrollment centers away from the border, funds 
     necessary to build infrastructure to effectively access pre-
     enrollment lanes, funds to reduce--participation fee in order 
     to increase participation and creates an appeals process for 
     those whose participation has been terminated. Additionally, 
     the provision requires a report detailing the cost of the 
     program as well as enrollment and enforcement information.

           Subtitle B--Enhancing Border Monitoring Technology

     Sec. 111--Deployment of Surveillance Systems Along the US-
         Mexico Border
       This provision requires the deployment of surveillance 
     systems along the southern border, such as the integrated 
     surveillance and intelligence system (ISIS), and ensure that 
     the entire border is monitored 24/7.
     Sec. 112--Deployment of Surveillance Systems Along the US-
         Canada Border
       This provision requires that the development of a plan to 
     deploy surveillance systems along the northern border and 
     provide Congress with a cost estimate and deployment schedule 
     by September 30, 2005.
     Sec. 113--Level of K-9 Units Working on the Southern Border
       This provision requires an increase in K-9 bomb detection 
     units by 20%.
     Sec. 114--Deploy Radiation Portal Monitors
       This provision authorizes $49 million to install radiation 
     portal monitors at all land border ports of entry by 
     September 30, 2005.

       Subtitle C--Ensuring Well Trained Personnel at Our Borders

     Sec. 121--Double the Number of CBP Personnel
       This provision authorizes the doubling of Customs and 
     Border Protection personnel based on existing positions in FY 
     2004, and increasing the number of Border Patrol agents 
     stationed between ports of entry by 3000 over FY 2005 and 
     2006.
     Sec. 122--Assessing Staffing Needs at Our Borders
       This provision requires DHS contract with an independent 
     entity with human resource and staffing expertise to produce 
     a study on staffing levels should be at ports of entry and 
     between ports of entry in order for CBP to accomplish its 
     border security mission. The study is due within one year of 
     enactment.
     Sec. 123--Additional and Continuous Training for Inspectors
       This provision requires training for inspectors and where 
     needed for associated support staff in new technologies. The 
     section also requires that inspectors along the southern 
     border be proficient in Spanish, and that appropriate 
     language training be provided to inspectors and border patrol 
     on the northern border. The provision also recommends the 
     creation of a program to ensure the retention of customs and 
     immigration expertise to supplement the One Face at the 
     Border Initiative.
     Sec. 124--Requiring a Report on the One Face at the Border 
         Initiative
       This provision requires the DHS to submit to Congress a 
     report on the One Face at the Border initiative outlining the 
     goals, strengths and weaknesses, and information relating to 
     training and staffing. The GAO is required to provide 
     Congress with an assessment of the report.

   Subtitle D--Establishing a Comprehensive Border Security Strategy

     Sec. 131--Border Security Strategy
       This provision requires the development of a comprehensive 
     inter-agency national Land Border Security Strategy to 
     identify and fix security gaps along the land borders of the 
     United States. The strategy is to review a variety of issues 
     related to land border security including personnel, 
     infrastructure, technology, coordination of intelligence 
     among agencies, legal responsibilities, criminal statutes, 
     apprehension goals, prosecutorial guidelines, economic impact 
     and the flow of commerce. The report is due on year after 
     enactment and a GAO assessment is due fifteen months after 
     enactment.
     Sec. 132--Improved Information Sharing
       This provision requires that IDENT, a two fingerprint 
     database, and IAFIS, a ten fingerprint database, be made 
     interoperable by October 1, 2005.
     Sec. 133--Creation of Northern and Southern Border 
         Coordinators
       This provision creates northern and southern land border 
     coordinator, appointed by the Secretary who serve as the 
     primary official of the department responsible for 
     coordinating federal security activities along the border.
     Sec. 134--Smart Border Accord Implementation
       This provision requires the President to submit to Congress 
     quarterly updates on the progress of the Smart Border Accord 
     Working Groups.
     Sec. 135--Sense of Congress on the Period of Admission for 
         Border Crossing Card Holders
       This provision expresses the Sense of Congress that 
     citizens and nationals of Mexico and Canada should be treated 
     with parity in establishing the periods of time that they are 
     in the US. The provision directs that once US-VISIT is fully 
     implemented that the period of admission for Mexicans using a 
     border crossing card should be increased to 6 months.

             Subtitle E--Enhancing Border Security Programs

     Sec. 141--Creating a More Effective Entry-Exit System
       This provision authorizes the creation of a US-VISIT 
     Outreach Office to better inform border communities about the 
     implementation of US-VISIT, reauthorizes the creation of the 
     Data Management Improvement Act Task Force to study issues 
     related to border security, and requires that information 
     currently collected by the I-94 arrival/departure form be 
     collected by electronic means, namely US-VISIT.
     Sec. 142--Transportation Worker Identification Card
       This provision requires the submission of a report by 
     December 31, 2004, on the development and distribution of the 
     transportation worker identification card, including (1) 
     information on how the card will be distributed, (2) the 
     eligibility of Canadian and Mexican truck drivers who are 
     certified under FAST, (3) selected biometric feature and (4) 
     the cost and deployment schedule for card reading equipment.
     Sec. 143--Standards and Verification Procedures for Inter-
         modal Cargo Containers
       This provision requires that the DHS develop standards for 
     container security 180 days after the enactment of this bill. 
     It also requires the Department to develop a security 
     verification process for container seals and evaluate 
     container tracking technologies, cargo targeting data, and 
     the inspection policy for empty containers.
     Sec. 144--Sense of Congress on the Need for Additional Staff 
         for the US Consulate General in Mexico
       This provision expresses the Sense of Congress that the 
     level of staffing for the US mission to Mexico has not kept 
     pace with rising consular workloads and that a 25% increase 
     in staff is necessary.

   Subtitle F--Securing Our Tribal and Federal Lands and Territories

     Sec. 151--Office of Tribal Security
       This provision creates an Office of Tribal Security to 
     coordinate relations between the federal government and 
     Indian tribes on issues relating to homeland security.
     Sec. 152--Transfer of ``Shadow Wolves'' from CBP to ICE
       This provision transfers the Shadow Wolves unit from 
     Customs and Border Protection to Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement.
     Sec. 153--DHS and DOI Coordination on Border Security; 
         Provision of Temporary Authority to DHS to Transfer Funds
       This provision provides the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     with temporary authority to transfer funds from the DHS to 
     the Department of the Interior to compensate the DOI for 
     border security activities. The DHS and DOI are instructed to 
     enter into a Memorandum of Agreement establishing (1) 
     criteria for DOI to receive such funding, (2) priorities 
     among projects, and (3) scope of activities for such 
     projects. The DHS is required to report the transfer of funds 
     to the appropriate congressional committees and a copy of the 
     Memorandum of Agreement must

[[Page 19993]]

     be submitted to Congress. This provision will expire on the 
     completion and implementation of the National Land Border 
     Security Plan in Section 131.

  Mr. TURNER of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman from the great State of 
Texas.

                          ____________________