JOHN CARTER

Securing our borders is the backbone of our national security, and something I have dedicated my years in Congress to protecting. Unfortunately there are those in Congress who don’t seem to think it is a priority.

Porous borders pose a grave threat to the security of America, and to the economic stability of cities and towns, especially in Texas. Concerned members from both parties, including myself, believe this issue demands action now and should not wait for a new president or a new decade. Unfortunately Nancy Pelosi has stopped legislation that I have co-sponsored that would protect our borders from coming to the House floor for a vote and being signed into law. To that end, Representative Thelma Drake has filed a discharge petition to force a vote on H.R. 4008, the SAVE Act. This bipartisan bill would address the security loopholes in our borders. If 218 Members sign the petition, Democrat leaders will be forced to hold a vote on this bill.

The SAVE Act, which is sponsored by Representative Heath Shuler, a Democrat, has 145 co-sponsors, including myself and 48 of my Democrat colleagues. The bill provides for a number of things that will drastically improve the security of our borders including:

• An increase in border patrol agents by 8,000 over the next five years; and additional 1,150 ICE agents, 140 Criminal Alien Program officers, and 250 state and local law enforcement for immigration support.

• Strengthening of alien smuggling penalties.

• Expedited removal of and increased detention facilities for illegal aliens.

• Authority for additional border infrastructure and aerial vehicles/surveillance equipment.

• Strengthened Employer Enforcement: (1) mandates usage of the E-Verify system which allows employers to make an efficient and accurate check of a hire’s employment eligibility; (2) requires employer/employee notification of Social Security number mismatches and multiple users; (3) requires establishment of electronic birth and death registration databases; (4) penalizes specified employers for failure to correct information returns; and (5) prohibits employers from deducting from gross income wages paid to unauthorized aliens.

Not only does this bill help to strengthen our borders immediately, but it is a good step towards reforming our immigration process. Last year, I introduced the Secure America for Everyone (SAFE) Act which consists of four straightforward bills addressing law enforcement, border security, and a secure ID system, ultimately leading to a practical immigration process that will make it easier to come into this country legally and harder to come illegally. Our country was founded on the principles of freedom and opportunity for all citizens, and I stand ready to work with my colleagues to create a system that makes sense.

Securing our borders should be at the heart of our national security strategy. Although we are in an era where common sense legislation too often gets caught up in partisan gridlock, this is not an issue we can afford to delay on any further. The American people have called on Congress repeatedly to act to secure our borders, and the Democratic Leadership should listen to them.

This week we remember the brave men and women who lost their lives in the devastating terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. We remember the courageous policemen and firemen who rose to the call of duty on that day, and we remember the families whose grief has resurfaced with the memories of their lost loved ones. The total number of United States citizens killed in that single day was 2,974, the vast majority of whom were civilians, not military. They were not attacked by a country’s army. In fact, as we all remember, the attack was just the opposite. America was “sucker punched” out of the blue by a group of radical terrorists whose goal is to bring their violent way of life to our free country.

This great tragedy united our country in its aftermath, but has left us drastically divided on its meaning. It is sad that during this week of remembrance, liberal political group MoveOn.org “sucker punched” our own military forces by launching a personal attack on General David Petraeus, a respected U.S. Army figure who has dedicated thirty years of his life to the service. On the day General Petraeus delivered his congressionally mandated report to Congress on the progress being made in Iraq, MoveOn.org placed a full page advertisement in the New York Times accusing him of treason. The ad alleged, without evidence, that Petraeus would not give an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq, but instead would be “cooking the books” giving a testimony pre-spun and pre-scripted by the White House. To push the dagger a little deeper, the title of the ad was a pun on Petraeus’s name: General Betray Us?

I wonder how a group of American people could be so vicious towards a respected and credible general. After all, this man is a four-star general, a Princeton Ph. D, a recipient of the Defense Distinguished Service Metal, and not to mention he has led our troops in the fight to protect our freedom, the very freedom that allows members of MoveOn.org the ability to speak so freely. To hear personal, intentional attacks like this on our military during the anniversary week of September, 11, raises one disturbing question. Why are we pointing the gun at our own soldiers rather than at the terrorists who killed so many innocent Americans? Because this attack on Petraeus was so public and so deliberate, it cannot be ignored by either side of the aisle. It is shameful and disrespectful, and any member of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, should denounce something so outright distasteful.

Despite the attacks, General Petraeus held his head high when he walked into the hearing room to deliver his testimony, seemingly unscathed by the ad. He delivered an honest, straight-forward assessment of the realities in Iraq. He discussed the importance of building on our current progress in Iraq and avoiding the consequences that would be sure to follow a precipitous withdrawal of support forces from the region. Not a single member of Congress wants to see our soldiers stay in Iraq one day longer than is necessary, and General Petraeus made clear his intention to suggest a modest drawdown of troop levels in response to the success that has been achieved.

After returning from my fourth trip to Iraq, I can testify that what General Petraeus reported about the significant progress is true. I have witnessed first-hand the American soldiers working with the Iraqi forces to bring their country to a more secure state. Our soldiers on the ground believe strongly in what they are fighting for and we should allow them the opportunity to succeed and return home.

General Petraeus is a man of integrity and he is doing exactly what Congress has asked him to do by delivering an honest report. His testimony reminds us that progress in Iraq has not come without a price. That’s why it remains more important than ever that Congress cast aside political calculations and work together for the security of our nation. We need to adopt a bi-partisan policy that is worthy of our troops’ continued sacrifice and consistent with their single minded determination to succeed.

One of the greatest protections our government can afford in an increasingly dangerous world is the ability to gather intelligence and use that knowledge to protect Americans from harm. Would any of us argue that it is not a dangerous world? The threat of terrorism is alive and real.

Sadly there are many in Congress who do not agree with our Central Texas commonsense. Recently, the House of Representatives discussed national security and the priority of intelligence-gathering as laid forth in the 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill. But you may be interested to know that this bill, crafted by Democrats, is bringing a new and more “relaxed” attitude to the intelligence community. An example: this bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit a report that discusses the effects of global warming and climate change. Does this sound like an intelligence function to you?

What this means in layman terms is that our finite intelligence-gathering resources – satellites, man hours, and taxpayer dollars – will be used to measure melting glaciers in summer time, instead of the threats being hurled at America by Osama bin Laden and his band of thugs.

The great value of gathering intelligence is that it allows us to thwart terrorist plans before they materialize. With that said, this vigilance is never done. We must be ever mindful of the threats that exist and take steps to prevent them. While things may appear calm on the surface, that is no reason to send our precious intelligence resources to Antarctica to research climate change.

This irresponsible interpretation of “intelligence gathering” is nothing new for liberals. President Clinton during his administration slashed funding for intelligence collection and analysis, but added money for frivolous projects such as the “DCI Environmental Center.” This center was notorious for wasting intelligence resources. The center diverted precious spy satellite time to survey the polar ice caps and sea turtle nests on beaches.

Similarly, this Congress is showing a preference for conducting “politically correct” intelligence. Those supporting this effort are the same ones who railed against flawed intelligence during the War on Terror, and yet their solution is to peel away valuable resources to study liberal priorities, like global warming.

In addition, the Democratic majority has also killed efforts to end – or in fact to even audit – wasteful spending funneled through the intelligence budget that could have been better directed to true national security interests. By shutting the door to fiscal restraint and accountability, liberals are paving the road to the “politically correct” intelligence community they’ve envisioned for decades.

America is at an important impasse of national security and partisan politics. One of these will protect us; the other will not. Spy satellites, intelligence analysts, and taxpayer dollars only go so far in the effort to protect us from another 9/11. Can we really afford to send some of them to Antarctica in the quest to measure glaciers? Make no mistake about it; the terrorists want another 9/11. With the Democrats’ plan – will we be ready?

Due to technical restrictions, Congressman Carter is unfortunately not able to directly answer questions posed on this forum.