 Regarding Final Passage of H.R. 6061 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 taxpayer’s money. American citizens deserve real solutions. The problem of securing our nation’s border 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, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Member on the Homeland Security Committee, presented a responsible alternative to this measure with realistic and possible solutions. His substitute amendment would have provided the funding authorization for the personnel and technology 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. ###
|