[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2361-2362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SECURING OUR NATION'S PORTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say 
that in committee today we had the U.S. Coast Guard, and I want to 
commend them because after 9/11, they were the first agency within 
minutes to be on guard, guarding our bridges. And, in fact, after 
Katrina they were there and they did a yeoman's job. In fact, out of 
Homeland Security, FEMA, and the other agencies, it is the Coast Guard 
that really does a good job.
  The administration's decision to allow the state-owned Dubai Ports to 
take over six major U.S. ports has bought the issue of port security to 
the forefront of national attention. Since September 11, in fact, I 
have been lobbying the Bush administration for additional security 
funds for our Nation's ports and other areas of our Nation's 
infrastructure, such as freight and passenger rail, our subway systems, 
buses, tunnels and bridges. They also need security.
  To me, this funding is particularly needed in my State of Florida 
whose 14 major ports serve as a key gateway into the United States. 
Moreover, these ports play a crucial role in transportation of 
ammunition, supplies and military equipment to our men and women 
fighting all over the world.
  The Bush administration has been telling the American public that 
they are checking, let us say, about 4 percent of the cargo that comes 
into the ports. But, in reality, they are only checking the manifests 
that list the inventory of the ships.
  Now, I think the American people are smart enough to know that if you 
are reading a piece of paper provided by the shippers and what is 
passing for port security in this Nation, then we are all in a lot of 
trouble.
  In addition, the administration's concentration of terrorist 
prevention funds in only the aviation industry has jeopardized the 
safety of other modes of transportation as well. For example, TSA is 
spending $4.4 billion alone on aviation security while only $36 
million, let me repeat, $36 million is spent on all surface 
transportation security. And with respect to our Nation's ports, which 
serve as the main economic engine for many of the areas in which they 
are found, an attack would not only be extremely dangerous for the 
local citizens, but economically disastrous as well.
  This is absolutely the wrong time for our government to make a 
decision that could give the impression of vulnerability in the 
security of our ports or our infrastructure system as a whole.
  The increased attention on our Nation's security infrastructure has 
come to the surface on the heels of the possible Dubai sale. I hope 
that the mass resistance to the sale will at least bring a discussion 
of the importance of increasing funding for our Nation's infrastructure 
security in the near future.
  In other words, security discussions should serve as a ``stand up'' 
for our Nation's security. I repeat, I hope this is a ``stand up'' for 
our Nation's security.
    

                        COUNTING VOTES CORRECTLY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, today I want to share material prepared by 
former Ambassador William B. Jones to the nation of Haiti. He is 
currently the Johns Professor of Political Science at Hampden-Sydney 
College, which is located in the Fifth District of Virginia.
  It is the opinion of Ambassador Jones and of myself that citizens of 
foreign countries illegally in the United States should not be counted 
to determine congressional representation nor for the Electoral 
College.
  The Framers of our Constitution would not have sanctioned illegality 
as a basis for determining congressional representation and certainly 
not in fixing the numbers of Presidential electors. The extensive 
debates on congressional representation were focused on slavery 
resulting in the three-fifths of a person rationale. It is ridiculous 
to assume that any of the Framers, given the tenor of their debate and 
their dedication to establishing a rule of law, would ever have 
considered allowing citizens of foreign countries illegally in the 
United States to play a role in determining control in the Congress and 
the election of the President. To assume otherwise would construe the 
Constitution as protecting and sanctioning illegality.
  It was not until the post-Civil War amendments that the issue of 
defining citizenship arose. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were 
drafted to redress the inequities of slavery. They were never intended 
to give blanket sanctions to illegality. ``Persons,'' as used in those 
amendments, clearly were intended to mean persons who were legally in 
the country.
  It would be ridiculous to assume that the Framers of those 
amendments, which were intended to safeguard the rights of former 
slaves or who had been in the country since its founding, intended in 
any way, shape or form to sanction illegality. The purpose was to 
enshrine a legal concept of equality, not to twist that concept to 
sustain, support, sanction or condone illegality.
  Once it is determined that the Constitution cannot be used to 
sanction, authorize, protect or promote illegality, the issue is, what 
is the remedy to correct the wrongs that have been done to our system 
of determining congressional representation in fixing the numbers of 
the Electoral College?
  As every citizen has the right to fair and equitable representation 
and to know that his or her vote is of the same weight as that of any 
other citizen, then any citizen who has lost representation as a result 
of the counting

[[Page 2362]]

of citizens of foreign countries illegally in the United States for the 
purposes of congressional and electoral representation has standing and 
can bring action to redress the grievance.
  Also, and perhaps most important, States that have lost congressional 
seats and have had their electoral vote reduced as a result of the 
counting of citizens of foreign countries illegally in the United 
States may have standing to bring action to redress their grievance. It 
is quite possible that a fair evaluation of the results of counting 
citizens of foreign states illegally in the United States would 
actually show that in States that have had their congressional and 
electoral power increased, there may have actually been an outflow of 
U.S. citizens and the entire increase in their political power is due 
to the influx of citizens of foreign countries illegally in this 
country.
  Therefore, a constitutional amendment may not be necessary to redress 
the inequalities caused by citizens of the United States by counting of 
citizens of foreign countries illegally in the United States for 
purposes of apportioning congressional and electoral college members.
  The Framers of our Constitution, in their great wisdom, enshrined the 
rule of law into our highest compact. To ignore the rule of law and to 
allow its subversion to shift and determine political power is totally 
contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution and of the 
Framers of the Civil War amendments.
  The practicality of determining accurate numbers for congressional 
and electoral representation is not a deterrent. Modern technology 
provides many ways of assessing numbers. In fact, almost on a daily 
basis the number of persons who are citizens of foreign countries 
illegally in the United States is estimated. Demographics, residential 
patterns, linguistic realities make it relatively simple to accurately 
determine numbers and redress the inequities that have resulted in 
accepting and even supporting illegality.
  The fact that those persons may pay some taxes is not relevant and 
nothing in the Constitution lists payment of taxes as a guarantor of 
the right to be counted for the purpose of fixing congressional and 
electoral representation.
  The Constitution does insist that political power be equitably 
divided among the States and no State should have advantage based on 
illegality.
  States have an obligation to protect and defend the rights of their 
citizens. Those states that have lost Congressional seats and Electoral 
College votes should bring appropriate legal action to ensure the 
equitable and constitutional distribution of political power. The 
United States Supreme Court should be ultimate determiner of the 
meaning and intent of the Constitution not the Census Bureau.

                          ____________________