C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Delaware. I would like to assure him that the bill before us today is designed to prepare every State, small, medium and large, to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. The Department's current method for allocating terrorism preparedness grant funds has not always well served small and medium sized States, including Delaware. The current grant system takes risk into account only in a limited way by specially earmarking funds to a handful of large urban areas under the urban area security initiative. With respect to all the rest of the funding, the current system ignores the threats, vulnerabilities and consequences of acts of terrorism anywhere else in the United States. Yet throughout America, there are populations and critical infrastructure that terrorists have within their sights. H.R. 1544 would eliminate this anomaly by requiring a risk-based analysis that covers every part of America, urban, suburban and rural, based on objective criteria. To this end, H.R. 1544 establishes a first-responder grant board to prioritize and evaluate all applications for covered grants on the basis of risk and need. During this evaluation and prioritization process, the grant board must consider a number of factors, including, but not limited to, various critical infrastructure sectors in all areas of the Nation, urban, suburban and rural. Indeed, the 16 critical infrastructure sectors enumerated in H.R. 1544 encompass a large number of critical infrastructure sectors, including agriculture and food, banking and finance, energy, public health and health care, government facilities, transportation systems, and water. As Delaware's former Governor, the gentleman knows that Delaware contains a great deal of critical infrastructure, including chemical plants, banking and finance, and ports. But he and I also know that, under current law, the Department does not consider these factors in awarding grant funds to his State. Delaware has no jurisdiction that receives grant funds from the urban area security initiative. As a result, like many States under the current system, Delaware only receives grant moneys under the State homeland security grant program. But funding under that program is awarded solely on the basis of an arbitrary political formula without regard to Delaware's actual risk or need. Passage of this legislation, the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act, will remedy these problems.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Delaware for yielding the time but more importantly for offering this important amendment. The House has voted in support of this amendment before. During the 108th Congress, twice it passed the House. As a stand-alone measure, all by itself, on September 14, 2004, and when it was up on its own merits, the recorded vote was 397-3. This is a commonsense amendment that is vitally important. It would provide protection to people who donate fire control or fire rescue equipment, but more importantly, it would better equip and protect our Nation's firefighters, and that is what this bill is all about. This bill is for our first responders. So is the Castle amendment. It will encourage fire departments, the private sector and other people to donate equipment that the firefighters desperately need so that they can better protect every American. Many people incorrectly assume that all firefighters work in departments that have the latest and the best equipment. The reality, unfortunately, is far different. It is estimated that 30,000 firefighters every day risk their lives unnecessarily due to inadequate personal protective equipment, just to cite one example. This is a fiscally prudent amendment. It is going to stretch our dollars. It serves the interests of taxpayers by extending the life of equipment they have already paid for. This is expensive equipment, and it ought to be used. And it provides poorer jurisdictions with capabilities they might not otherwise have and might not have the ability to attain. I congratulate the gentleman for offering the amendment, I strongly support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support as well.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the bill authored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and commend him for his great work on behalf of America's job creators. I just heard the Democratic Member say that only a tiny fraction of the people who die in America and their families have to pay this death tax. Apparently, the gentleman has never had to go through the dreaded form 706. How many of us right now are trying to deal with form 1040? Even though we deal with it year in and year out, we still cannot figure it out. What we are trying to get rid of is the complexity of the Tax Code and the $20 billion a year that the death tax consumes from the American economy that does not go to the Treasury but, rather, goes to tax lawyers and accountants and life insurance sales and keyman policies and so on, all of this estate planning which is economic waste. It is hurting our economy. Eighty-eight pages of the Internal Revenue Code, 88 pages of law, are devoted to trying to close the loopholes that have erupted over the 20th century as our experiment with the death tax has shown that it actually costs the government and costs the American people money to maintain it. Much as we would like to be able to tax the super-rich, they get out of the tax with trusts and loopholes and so on, as will the rich after we do what the Democrats want, which is to create some complicated new definitions to try and cabin off this tax so it only affects a few people. The only people who will actually be hurt by the burden of these new complex rules and laws will be people who we do not want to pay the tax in the first place. If at the time that one of one's loved ones dies, just to file the return, not pay the tax, they are going to have to plow through all of these helpful instructions that are in such small print that even a high school student might need reading glasses to get through some of these 40 pages. But here is the kind of helpful thing one will find when a loved one dies: ``Generally, you may list on Schedule M all property interests that pass from the decedent to the surviving spouse and are included in the gross estate. However, you should not list any `nondeductible terminable interests,' described below, on Schedule M unless you are making a QTIP election. The property for which you make this election must be included on Schedule M. See `qualified terminable interest property' on the following page. ``For the rules on common disaster and survival for a limited period, see section 2056(b)(3).'' This is just one little paragraph out of 40 pages of this. They are going to have to hire a lawyer. They are going to have to hire an accountant to go through all this and list everything that their family member has accumulated throughout his or her entire life just to prove that they do not owe this tax. Anybody who is slogging through their form 1040 trying to file their income tax return now knows what I am talking about. We are trying to eliminate the complexity of this law which hurts every single person who works for a small business in America. When that small business is liquidated in order to pay the death tax because it is a tax on property of small businesses, people lose their jobs, and that is where the burden and the incidence of this tax falls. Repealing the death tax once and for all is the right thing to do, and I am very pleased that this rule will bring that to the floor.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the preceding speaker just told us that he does not like the carryover basis. And I will tell you what. If his amendment got rid of any aspect of carryover basis in death tax I would vote for it. But this is a give-with-the-right-hand, take-away-with- the-left-hand operation that he is proposing, because what he is also doing is he is bringing back the 47 percent death tax. We are trying to repeal the death tax, not bring it back; and you cannot tell us that capital gains at 15 percent is worse than the death tax at 47 percent. And as the gentleman from North Dakota just mentioned, we do not have a carryover basis in its entirety. We have simply a step up in basis for both the spouse and for the children. I wish we could get rid of the carryover basis. I would be thrilled with that. But the Pomeroy substitute gives us the death tax back full strength at 47 percent tax rate, and it arbitrarily says that a small business that is worth $3 million is going to have to deal with this. Now you have to ask yourself, in advance of your death, do you know what the assets and inventory of your business is going to be 10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road? The answer is no. Of course not. You are going to have to do that tax compliance year in and year out. Tax compliance, the cost of actual accountants and lawyers and life insurance and all the other things that you have to do to deal with the death tax year in and year out is $20 billion a year. This tax, the death tax, kills between 170,000 and a quarter million jobs each year, according to the Nonprofit Center For Data Analysis. The death tax is a job killer. It is destroying family farms and businesses. It is a drag on economic growth, and it is the greatest disincentive to invest additional capital in family businesses in America. But the authors of this amendment still want to pry lots of cash out of the cold dead fingers of America's deceased entrepreneurs. So they rewrite the language of the Tax Code so we can keep all 88 pages of complexity of the death tax and all the thousands of pages of regulation and the hundreds of thousands of pages of case law that go with it. This is the most complex part of one of the most complex tax systems in the world, and it is time to drive a stake through its heart. It is time for the death tax to die. This is not the time to redefine the death tax or add legislative language so that tax lawyers and accountants can have more to play with. It is time to kill it. And that is why we must vote against this amendment and in favor of the total repeal of the death tax. Here is the message that this amendment, were it to be adopted, sends to American workers: Do not work for a small- or medium-sized American family business. Do not work for a large family owned business. To be safe, do not work for any small businesses that are growing quickly or picking up new customers or introducing new products. Because the Federal Government has decided that the family businesses can grow without the destructive burden of the death tax but only until some IRS bureaucrat decides that these businesses are worth $3.5 million dollars. Then the businesses will be subject to huge new tax burdens. And guess what? You will not know until it is too late whether you are on one side or the other side of that threshold. I have to tell you, it sounds like $3 million is a lot of money. And it is if you or I had it in our pocket. But for a business, counting its real estate, its assets, its inventory, its trucks, that is a tiny business indeed. And if you are trying to employ some people, you have 10, 11, 12 people that work for that business, what are you going to say to them when they lose their jobs because the family business has to be liquidated on the death of the entrepreneur in order to come up with the actual cash to pay for it? The IRS is not going to accept shares of stock in the family business in payment of the death tax. They are going to say, go sell those shares, go liquidate the business, go sell the assets in order to pay off the tax plan. To the supporters of this amendment I say we agree with you that the death tax destroys family farms and businesses. Obviously, that is your presumption if you are trying to have a threshold below which people will not pay it. We agree with you that the death tax destroys family farms and businesses, that it kills jobs and reduces economic growth. So why do you want to keep this monster alive? Please join with us and kill the death tax once and for all.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to recognize Dr. R. Duncan Luce of the University of California-Irvine for his outstanding contributions to the scientific community. Professor Luce is one of eight U.S. scientists and engineers--and one of four Californians--to receive the 2003 National Medal of Science, the Nation's highest scientific honor. Professor Luce is no stranger to high honors. Over his 50-year career, Professor Luce has been awarded the Society of Experimental Psychologists' Norman Anderson Award, the Decision Analysis Society's Frank P. Ramsey Medal, and the American Psychological Foundation's Gold Medal for Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology. Among his many influential publications are the seminal texts Games and Decisions (1957) and Individual Choice Behavior (1959), both of which remain in widespread academic use. His pioneering work in game and choice theory has resulted in dramatic advances in the fields of economics and psychology, and is applied to a variety of disciplines, including the analysis and prediction of stock market fluctuations. Professor Luce has made vital contributions to Orange County in the course of his 20 years of service at the University of California- Irvine. He first came to UCI in 1972 before leaving in 1975 to serve in a variety of positions at the forefront of mathematical research at some of the Nation's finest universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia University, Harvard University, and the University of Pennsylvania. In 1988, he returned to Irvine, where he created UCl's Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, thereby reinforcing the campus's reputation as a leader in that field. He has served on search committees for three UCI chancellors. Mr. Speaker, I know that all of our colleagues join me in paying tribute to Dr. R. Duncan Luce. In behalf of all of us in the United States Congress, I am pleased to recognize Professor Luce's remarkable achievements, and to thank him and his family for all that they have given to the improvement of learning and the betterment of our society.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, several provisions in this legislation are of particular interest to the Committee on Homeland Security. First, this spending bill will be procedurally consolidated with the REAL ID Act, which the House approved 261-161 on February 10, 2005. We cannot effectively fight terrorism if we cannot verify the identity of people boarding airplanes, entering nuclear power plants, visiting the White House, or gaining access to any of the countless places a terrorist could use as a stage to multiply the effect of an attack. Accurate identification of individuals before permitting them access to critical infrastructure is a prerequisite to success. The failure to ensure the integrity of identification documents that can be legally used to access critical infrastructure means that the entire process of checking IDs is deeply flawed. Likewise, the time and effort of every law abiding citizen who waits in seemingly endless lines, first to obtain and then to present identification, is wasted. Document fraud is a crime against all Americans who must tolerate the indignity of life in a post-9/11 world. Why must honest Americans prove who we are, again and again, if terrorists and criminals are free to make a hash of this requirement? Five weeks ago, the House approved the REAL ID Act, just as we did in the 108th Congress. In so doing, we responded to the challenge put before us by Mir Aimal Kansi, who slaughtered five people at CIA headquarters; by Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the first World Trade Center attack; and by several of the 9/11 hijackers who would have found it far more difficult, if not impossible, to carry out their terror attacks had we prevented them from using false identification. This spending bill also contains funding to secure our borders. To secure our nation from nuclear attack, the legislation includes $55 million to detect nuclear material at foreign ports. The Megaports Initiative is designed to interdict illicit traffic in nuclear and other radioactive materials. By surveilling container shipping at high volume, high risk overseas ports, and by deploying radiation detection devices at our own ports of entry, America's counter-terrorism strategy can succeed in a comprehensive defense of the global supply chain. This bill also provides $38.97 million for the Terrorist Screening Center. This multi-agency homeland security effort is responsible for supporting the Department of Homeland Security's effort to screen passengers on both domestic and international flights. This new funding will help the TSC to handle new requirements, such as the Department of Homeland Security's Secure Flight Program.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I address the substance of this amendment, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the co-author of this amendment, for working so diligently over the last several days to craft the language we are debating on the floor today. He has been at the forefront of bringing the issue of consumer protection in towing, which is what this amendment is about, to the attention of the Congress. The legislation that he introduced last Congress, which he has reintroduced as H.R. 1173 in the 109th Congress, properly has focused attention on a program that is frustrating local government officials and police personnel charged with protecting public safety and especially our constituents, ordinary citizens. I would especially like to thank the chairman and the professional staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who bent over backwards to work with us to put together this good amendment. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Petri), and the gentleman from Oregon (Ranking Member DeFazio) all provided us with excellent support in crafting this amendment. More than anyone, I should like to thank Bob McDonell, the chief of police in the city of Newport Beach, California. He has been vigilant in seeking reform to protect the citizens of California from what we have come to know as predatory towing. For several years, Chief McDonell has worked to build public awareness about this issue. He educated me about this issue and about the current state of the law, and he offered the suggestions for reform that are the subject of this amendment today. Chief McDonell and other law enforcement personnel in Orange County have had to deal with road tow truck operators who are ripping off ordinary consumers by exploiting a loophole in Federal law. In California, in particular, a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000 has called into question two provisions of our State law that are designed to help local communities protect public safety by ensuring that tow truck operators who tow vehicles parked on private property do so with both the written authorization of the owner of the property on which the trespass is occurring and with the owner or an agent of the owner being present at the time of the tow. These important safeguards protect the rights of property owners to remove trespassing vehicles, and they also ensure that the decisions are clearly made with the knowledge and participation of the private property owners. Although there is a decision of the California Supreme Court upholding these provisions of California law, the conflict between the State and Federal decisions has left the practical effect of the law in limbo. It has made the law essentially unenforceable. This problem, Mr. Chairman, was put in stark relief just last week when the Orange County district attorney's office announced that they would not prosecute a tow truck operator who was in such a hurry to tow a vehicle before the owner returned that he towed a car with a sleeping 4-year-old child in the back seat. According to the story in the Orange County Register, the deputy district attorney said that the Ninth Circuit decision was hampering her prosecution saying, ``The towing companies are able to flagrantly violate the California Vehicle Code, and we cannot prosecute that until the Federal law is changed.'' What we have the opportunity to do with this amendment is to make the necessary change. The problem is not just in Orange County; it is in northern Virginia where the co-author resides. It is in many communities across the country. A few bad apples in the towing industry are wreaking havoc, endangering citizens and compromising public safety. The vast majority of tow truck operators and their companies are good public citizens. They work hard. And they work cooperatively with private property owners. They assist law enforcement. The reputation of these good citizens in this industry everywhere is soiled by the actions of a few rogue operators who are able to operate outside the law. This amendment is merely designed to allow States to ensure that the bad apples come back within the reach of the law and that the confusion that has been prompted by the courts in California, the Federal court, which has compromised our State's ability to protect its citizens, is clarified. I know that this amendment does not resolve all of the problems that the co-author, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has with predatory towers, and I look forward to working with him and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on this issue further as we head to conference should this amendment be accepted. As we consider whether any further refinements are needed, however, we must be mindful that, in the main, deregulation has been a huge success for the industry and for consumers. So in our desire to ensure that States can properly carry out their Constitutional function to protect public safety and to protect consumers, we need to be careful that we not return to the status quo ante which would expose the industry and consumers to a miasma of confusing and conflicting State, county and municipal ordinances that neither protect public safety nor our pocketbooks and, instead, breed inefficiency and lead to increased costs for consumers. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to ensure that the proper balance is maintained. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, Tillie Fowler was a giant in this Congress. Though she served only four terms, 100 percent faithful to her pledge to limit her service in this House, she rose to our elected leadership, and she kept us focused on national security as our highest priority. She was called the Steel Magnolia because she was a hybrid of a southern belle and a marine drill sergeant. She was best known for her roles on the Committee on Armed Services and in the House leadership where she consistently was the voice of the military, calling for a defense budget and defense resources always sufficient to keep America strong. It was Tillie's intellect and her willingness to work across the aisle that advanced her to a preeminent position as vice chairwoman of the House Republican Conference and as a deputy minority whip for 6 years. I worked with Tillie in our House leadership and on the House Policy Committee and on such special projects as the Speaker's Working Group on Russia. Today, as the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I miss Tillie Fowler more than ever because nowhere was her national leadership more in evidence than in her work toward terrorism preparedness. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, her top priority was the country's preparedness for a domestic terror attack. She found overlap inadequacies among the Federal agencies, the many agencies that were responsible in those days for terrorism preparedness, and she tried to fix it. A year and a half before 9/11, she drafted the Preparedness Against Terrorism Act of 2000. If we had followed her farsighted advice, the Congress would have placed top priority on elevating and consolidating the Federal Government's anti-terrorism efforts by creating a Presidential Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness. Tillie's legislation was not passed in the 106th Congress, but we soon came to realize through the tragic events of 9/11 that her focus and her proposed reforms were vitally necessary. As a result, many of her recommended reforms are included in what is now law, the Homeland Security Act. She was truly the guardian angel of our national security. Tillie Fowler, our friend and colleague, dedicated her life to her community and our Nation. It was an honor to serve with her, and it will be an honor to carry on her work to ensure that America is always prepared so we may be always free. Our prayers are with her husband, Buck; with her daughters, Tillie Ann and Elizabeth; and with her entire family. Tillie Fowler was a giant in this Congress. Though she served only four terms--100 percent faithful to her pledge to limit her service in this House--she rose to the Leadership of our ranks, and kept us focused on our national security as our highest priority. She was called the ``Steel Magnolia''--because she was a hybrid of a Southern belle and a Marine drill sergeant. She was best known for her roles on the Armed Services Committee and in the House Leadership, where she was consistently the voice of the military, calling for a defense budget sufficient to ensure a strong America. It was Tillie's intellect, and willingness to work across the aisle, that advanced her to a preeminent position of leadership as Vice Chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, and as a deputy majority whip for six years. I had the wonderful opportunity to serve with Tillie in the elected Leadership, on the House Policy Committee, and on such vital national security projects as the Speaker's Advisory Group on Russia. Today, as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I miss Tillie Fowler more than ever, because nowhere was her national leadership more in evidence than in her work toward terrorism preparedness. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, her top priority was the country's preparedness for a domestic terrorist attack. She found overlap and inadequacies among the several federal agencies with jurisdiction over terrorism preparedness, and she tried to fix it. A year and a half before 9/11, she drafted the ``Preparedness Against Terrorism Act of 2000.'' If we had followed her far sighted advice, the Congress would have placed top priority on elevating and consolidating the federal government's anti-terrorism efforts by creating a Presidential Council on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness. Tillie's legislation was not passed in the 106th Congress, but we soon came to realize--through the tragic events of 9/11--that her focus and her proposed reforms were vitally necessary. As a result, many of her proposed reforms were included in the Homeland Security Act, which is now law. She was truly the guardian angel of our national security. Tillie Fowler, my friend and colleague, dedicated her life to her community and her nation. It was an honor to serve with her, and it will be an honor to carry on her work to ensure that America is always prepared, so that we may be always free.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. And I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for bringing this resolution to the floor today. The former prime minister of Lebanon, who died so tragically, was a visionary for his country, for the region, for the world. He was an entrepreneur who understood the importance of markets and a free economy to the future of Lebanon and the future of the Middle East. He was a philanthropist, who, from his personal fortune, personally paid for so many to be educated both in this country and around the world, with only one condition, that they come back to Lebanon and help build a free democratic society there. His murder on Tuesday in Beirut was a loss for Lebanon to be sure, for the Middle East as well, but also for the international community, for everyone in the world who loves freedom and democracy. We are gathered today to honor his memory and to call for the swift pursuit and punishment of those responsible. More importantly, we are here to do justice to Mr. Hariri's dreams of a free, independent, and sovereign Lebanon. I first met Rafik Hariri during a visit to Lebanon 12 years ago. He was impressive because, as someone from the private sector, he dedicated himself, at great risk in the midst of civil war, to bringing warring factions together. He was, as has been stated here, a principal architect of the Taif Accords. As prime minister, he put in place the kinds of initiatives that would make Jack Kemp proud, recognizing the power of incentives, recognizing that if people could be given reason to share the Lebanese hope that reconstruction was possible to invest their money not just from Lebanon but from around the world, that even in those horrible ashes of war, we could see spring up new entrepreneurship, new hope, and new opportunity. His tireless work on behalf of peace in a country that was wracked by a vicious civil war and his diligent pursuit of freedom and independence for his countrymen, all at great risk to himself and to his family, was always inspiring. His broader work to open the Middle East to enterprise and economic prosperity should serve as an example to people throughout the Middle East and around the world that the path to prosperity requires free minds and free markets. It is time that we help bring his dreams to fruition. I had the opportunity to meet more recently, in December of 2003, with President Basheer Assad of Syria; and I shared with him our concerns, our American concerns, about the continued military occupation in Lebanon which Rafik Hariri worked diligently to bring to an end. Mr. Hariri's funeral in part turned into a protest against the continued Syrian occupation. The 200,000 people participating in the procession make it clear to the rest of us around the world that those in Lebanon, just as we here in America and in nations around the world, deserve the right to self-determination. For 25 years Lebanon and its people have been denied this freedom. This resolution honors a great leader of Lebanon whose principles are, first of all, fundamentally consonant with Lebanon and the Lebanese spirit and culture, but, second and equally importantly, completely consonant with what we every day in this United States Congress fight for for our fellow Americans and for people around the world. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to honor Mr. Hariri and to support the people of Lebanon.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, I submit the Rules of Procedure for the Committee on Homeland Security for printing in the Congressional Record. On February 9, 2005, the Committee adopted these rules by a voice vote, with a quorum present.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to join this debate as the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and welcome the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my ranking member. We are here because each day thousands of people illegally enter the United States. They know where to cross. They know how to get a driver's license. And if they are caught, they even know how to rig our legal system to stay in the country nonetheless. What has been the result of this broken system? On January 25, 1993, Mir Aimal Kansi stood at the entrance of the Central Intelligence Agency and gunned down five people. A month later Ramzi Yousef masterminded the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Both men were in the country because they were awaiting the outcome of their asylum applications. This legislation will fix that loophole. On September 11, 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the 19 hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried between them 13 U.S. driver's licenses and 21 state-issued ID cards. Several of these hijackers had overstayed their visas, and they were unlawfully in this country. But their driver's licenses permitted them to board those airplanes nonetheless. This bill fixes that problem. The laws that we are operating under today allow terrorists to enter our country and to plan and carry out attacks in the United States. The reality is that this homeland security vulnerability is being exploited by terrorists and criminal aliens every day. H.R. 418 makes necessary changes to ensure that terrorists do not obtain identification, as did the 9/11 hijackers, that will permit them to board airplanes or access Federal facilities or easily travel within the United States. The most literal security gap that this bill addresses is the 3-mile hole in the San Diego border fence. Recent press accounts have reported that al Qaeda operatives have joined forces with human smuggling rings in order to enter the United States. As we now know, the 9/11 hijackers were interviewed 25 times by U.S. consular officers; they had 43 contacts with Immigration and Customs authorities. But because of administration and congressional initiatives requiring the screening of all foreign nationals entering the United States, terrorists will be forced to resort to crossing our borders illegally. The border security fence, therefore, which thus far has been mired in bureaucratic delays, is part of our national security efforts and must be completed now. For decades the border between San Diego and Mexico has been the preferred corridor for entry into the United States by unknown or undocumented persons. With highly populated cities both north and south of the border as well as relatively quick access to national transportation hubs such as LAX, it is the perfect place for aliens to slip across the border and gain quick access to U.S. communities and transportation networks. The important infrastructure assets in the area, including in particular the largest naval base on the west coast of the United States and the busiest seaport in the United States, makes securing this area even more important. From September through November, 2004, the border patrol apprehended over 23,000 individuals with criminal records including 84 wanted for murder and 151 wanted for sexual assault. In 2004 border patrol agents arrested almost 1.2 million illegal aliens with 11.6 percent of those apprehended in the San Diego sector alone, despite the fact that the San Diego sector is roughly 1 percent of our border area. Over the past 2 years, the three border patrol stations responsible for patrol of the existing 14 miles of border fence in the San Diego sector have apprehended approximately 200 special interest aliens annually from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey. Completion of this fence will not only reduce the number of illegal crossings in the area but will also allow the Border Patrol to redeploy manpower and redirect precious resources to other important homeland security missions along the border. And like the other border fence areas, the San Diego sector can expect to see a reduction in crime, including murder, as well. Of the 14 miles authorized by Congress several times, 9 miles of the triple fence have been completed. But only in Washington would people construct a fence with a big hole in it. The final 3\1/2\ miles has been held up due to bureaucratic red tape and lawsuits. The border patrol has worked to alleviate the environmental concerns that have been raised. In fact, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in July, 2003, that construction of the fence ``is not likely to jeopardize'' the continued existence of any relevant endangered species in the area. Furthermore, not completing the fence will continue to cause other environmental damage in the area due to large numbers of persons crossing illegally through this area and subsequent pursuit by the border patrol, as well as large amounts of trash and refuse left in the wake of smugglers and illegal crossers. As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and a California resident, I am extremely concerned by the roadblocks that different bureaucratic groups have used to justify thwarting this important project. For example, in September of 2003, the San Diego Border Patrol requested entry to a section of county-owned land located in the 3\1/2\ mile section in dispute and located about 300 feet from the U.S.- Mexican border in order to, first, improve the road for safety of the border patrol agents; and, two, take soil samples in order to address environmental concerns pertaining to construction of the fence. But the San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation denied access, saying there was no authority to enter upon the land. After months of negotiation, I have been told that the issue was finally resolved, but this clearly demonstrates that Federal action is necessary to ensure that the fence is completed and that border security remains a priority. The time for delay and bureaucratic obstruction is over. We must complete this fence, and we must pass H.R. 418. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate be extended for 1 additional minute, to be divided equally between majority and minority.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Clerk on rollcall No. 2 I was in consultation with the leadership staff outside the chamber and was therefore not present when my name was called. Had I been present I would have voted for J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois as Speaker of the House.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Californian. Kathy Tavoularis is retiring from her position as the Executive Director of the Republican Party of Orange County, where she has directed the day-to-day operations of the county Republican Central Committee for over a decade. Kathy began her involvement with the county party as a college intern in 1991, and was hired in 1993 as Office Director. Kathy represents so much of the diversity that makes Orange County such a lively and interesting place. She was born in Montreal, Quebec in 1970 to George and Maria, who had emigrated to Canada 10 years earlier from Greece. She grew up outside of Chicago, Illinois and became a life-long fan of the Chicago Cubs and the Chicago Bears. Kathy is fluent in Greek and conversational in Quebecois French from her days in Canada. She has also traveled extensively in Europe. She graduated from California State University, Long Beach, earning a B.A. in Political Science, with an emphasis in Politics and Policy Formation. Kathy worked three jobs at once to pay her way through college and received her degree after only 3 years. Kathy has been a dedicated member of the Orange County Republican Women Federated, the Orange County Young Republicans, an appointed Member of the California Republican Party, and has worked at the 1996, 2000 and 2004 Republican National Conventions. Kathy regularly attends St. John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church in Anaheim, where she is active in Bible Study and Early Church History Classes. On behalf of my colleagues, let me join the many friends, co-workers and admirers in wishing Kathy Tavoularis nothing but the best in her future endeavors. She leaves behind an enormously positive legacy for the residents of Orange County, local community leaders, and in helping to make Orange County ``the most Republican county'' in America.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this point to engage my friend, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a brief colloquy to clarify the intention of section 1016 of this bill which concerns information-sharing and would create a new Information Sharing Environment, or ISE. Section 1016(b)requires that the President create an ISE and that he ``ensure that the ISE provides and facilitates the means for sharing terrorism information among all appropriate Federal, State, local, and tribal entities, and the private sector, through the use of policy guidelines and technologies.'' That is a quotation from section 1016(b)(2) at page 66, lines 21 through 25. I understand, Mr. Speaker, this section to mean that the Information Sharing Environment referred to will serve as a new, interconnected environment by which Federal agencies can exchange information with each other and with State, local, and private sector officials as their statutory mandates may require. Because the Homeland Security Act of 2002 assigned to the Department of Homeland Security significant responsibilities for sharing terrorism-related information with State, local, and private sector officials; for example, section 201(d) and section 892, I want to make sure that my understanding of the purpose of section 1016 is accurate.

Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. COX. I thank the chairman. I would also like to engage my colleague, the chairman, in a colloquy on section 1021 which would add a new section 119 to the National Security Act of 1947, establishing the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC. Section 119(d)(1) lists among the primary missions of the NCTC: ``To serve as the primary organization in the United States Government for analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or acquired by the United States Government pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism, excepting intelligence pertaining exclusively to domestic terrorists and domestic counterterrorism.'' That occurs at page 87, lines 10 through 16. Section 119(e)(1) of the National Security Act, as amended, would state that the new National Counterterrorist Center, NCTC, ``may, consistent with applicable law, at the direction of the President, and the guidelines referred to in section 102A(b), receive intelligence pertaining exclusively to domestic counterterrorism from any Federal, State or local government or other source necessary to fulfill its responsibilities and retain and disseminate such intelligence.'' That occurs at page 88, lines 17 through 24. Section 201(d)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires the Department of Homeland Security ``To assess, receive, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence information, and other information from agencies of the Federal Government, State and local government agencies (including law enforcement agencies), and private sector entities, and to integrate such information in order to (A) identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist threats to the homeland; (B) detect and identify threats against the United States; and (C) understand such threats in light of the actual and potential vulnerabilities of the homeland.'' And section 201(d)(9) of the Homeland Security Act requires the Department of Homeland Security ``To disseminate, as appropriate, information analyzed by the Department within the Department, to other agencies of the Federal Government with responsibilities relating to homeland security, and to agencies of State and local governments with private sector entities with such responsibilities in order to assist in the deterrence, prevention, preemption of, or response to, terrorist attacks against the United States.'' So, first, I would like to make sure I am correct in understanding that it is not the intention of section 119(d) and (e) to have the NCTC exercise any aspect of the role that has been assigned to DHS in the Homeland Security Act, including specifically DHS's primary responsibility for the sharing of terrorism-related information with State, local and private sector officials and the public.

Mr. COX. I thank my friend, the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Could he also confirm my understanding of 119(e)?