[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18278-18295]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 18279]]


  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;
       (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

[[Page 18280]]

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.''
  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

[[Page 18281]]

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. 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 
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

[[Page 18282]]

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 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.

[[Page 18283]]


  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 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).

[[Page 18284]]


  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 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

[[Page 18285]]

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 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

[[Page 18286]]

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; 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

[[Page 18287]]

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.
  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

[[Page 18288]]

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.
  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

[[Page 18289]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 18290]]

  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

[[Page 18291]]

possible solutions. His substitute amendment would have provided the 
funding authorization for the personnel and technology 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.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This bill is not about border 
security or terrorism prevention, as the name implies, but is rather a 
gimmick and will not in fact solve our nation's border and immigration 
problems. We need to focus on ``smart security'' and develop a 
comprehensive plan. Only then will we truly secure our borders and 
ensure our safety as Americans. This bill strays far from those 
priorities and is opposed by almost every reasonable business, labor, 
and civil liberties advocacy group in the country.
  The bill before us does not provide any specific dollar amounts to 
build the mandated fence, and nowhere does the bill even authorize 
additional Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or 
Customs officers needed to secure the border. Blindly erecting a fence, 
without taking into consideration the needs of the area and the men and 
women who work on the front lines of our borders is not effective and 
we can do better. We need to focus on ``smart security,'' and we need 
to do it now.
  It is extremely important to know who is entering our country and who 
is already here. We need to focus on strengthening our borders by 
improving our surveillance technology, deploying more border patrol 
agents, and providing them with the materials they need to effectively 
do their jobs. This is why I am proud to support Mr. Thompson's 
substitute amendment.
  The substitute amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security 
to develop a comprehensive border security strategy by deploying at 
least 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents and 2,000 additional 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at our borders each year for 
the next four years. The substitute also provides helicopters, portable 
computers, radio communications and hand-held global positioning 
devices so the agents have all of the resources they need to get the 
job done.
  Mr. Thompson's substitute also ends our ineffective ``Catch and 
Release'' practice. We need to ensure that we have adequate space in 
which to house people until we determine who they are and why they are 
here. It is unacceptable that illegal immigrants have been released 
after being charged with a crime simply because there is not adequate 
space in which to detain them. The substitute authorizes 100,000 
additional detention bed spaces through FY 2010 to assist with the 
detention of undocumented individuals.
  We also need to refocus our efforts on monitoring precisely which 
materials come through our borders. As the lead Democrat on the 
Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I 
have called for the installation of radiation portal monitors at 
designated ports of entry to screen all inbound cargo for radiological 
or nuclear materials. I am dedicated to ensuring we have this important 
technology at every entry point.
  Although erecting a security fence in specifically targeted areas may 
be necessary, it needs to be part of a much larger comprehensive plan. 
In order to employ a plan that is truly effective, we need to take into 
consideration all of these factors, not just a select few.
  Rhetorical bills proposing a quick fix will not secure our borders, 
and I will not support legislation that does not propose a 
comprehensive solution. I am proud to support Mr. Thompson's substitute 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to follow suit.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6061, 
the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This bill will help secure the border and 
stem the unrelenting flow of illegal aliens into this country by 
authorizing 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing, mandating the 
Department of Homeland Security to achieve and maintain operational 
control over the entire border through various methods such as ground 
sensors, cameras and surveillance technology. It also requires the 
Department of Homeland Security to provide necessary authority to 
Border Patrol agents to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the 
authority granted to the U.S. Coast Guard.
  The provisions in this bill will address our country's vulnerability 
and strengthen operational controls along our borders. Border fences 
have a proven success rate in drastically reducing the number of 
illegal aliens entering our country illegally. When enacted, this bill 
will dramatically reduce illegal immigration and make us safer.

[[Page 18292]]

  I have long been committed to stopping the flow of illegal 
immigration and securing our porous borders. My constituents have made 
it clear to me they want our borders secure, our laws enforced and the 
flow of illegal immigration stopped immediately. The recent 22 
immigration field hearings held across the country during the month of 
August yielded the same mandate from the American people, secure the 
borders now.
  The amnesty provisions contained in the Senate-passed immigration 
reform measure earlier this year would encourage future illegal 
immigration and reward those who have violated America's laws with a 
quick and easy path to citizenship. There is more to be done in dealing 
with illegal immigration, but securing the borders must be the first 
step. America cannot afford to wait any longer and I will continue to 
push to secure our borders now.
  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.
  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 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

[[Page 18293]]

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.
  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

[[Page 18294]]

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

[[Page 18295]]


     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     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.

                          ____________________