Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Aliberti supports, and the United Nations Security Council resolution supports actions by member States in response to North Korea pulling out of the nonproliferation agreement, to go forward and put these types of prohibitions on the transfer of technologies to North Korea that would allow it to develop these types of weapon systems. North Korea is a proliferator, India is not.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. We do have a philosophical disagreement over open borders. Some of us support fencing those borders. We do have a philosophical disagreement over a massive amnesty. Some of us believe that massive amnesty in 1986 made the situation worse. That is why we don't want to go forward with another amnesty of that type. Let me say I did chair the hearings in San Diego and in Texas. I toured that southern border with local law enforcement and immigration officials. I heard their arguments in favor of putting up that border fence and their arguments about doing something about these tunnels. This was a tunnel that was six ballfields long. I went through this tunnel. Contraband was trafficked illegally over these cement floors, under electric lighting. The tunnel had water pumps, full ventilation, and a system of pulleys through it. There have been other tunnels discovered since. I don't believe in open borders. We are going to criminalize the action of putting up these tunnels. We are also, with the Immigration Law Enforcement Act, we are going to allow local law enforcement, and there are 700,000 local law enforcement. Wouldn't it be nice to allow them to voluntarily assist the 2,000 ICE agents in this country so when we have a situation in the future like we had on 9/11 where four of those hijackers had been stopped by local police for speeding prior to the attacks, they can call into that hotline and, if there is suspicious activity, can look into the immigration status of those people who are here in this country illegally. Let me also say that the Community Protection Act is coming up under this rule, and criminal gangs today like MS-13 are no longer just the neighborhood kids who may be up to no good, the kinds of gangs we remember from our youth, because we have transnational criminal gangs active around the country that now resemble organized crime syndicates. They have highly organized leadership and organizational models, and networks that stretch across this Nation. They operate across the border. They will bring, in the words of one sheriff, anything or anybody across that border for a price. I don't believe post-9/11 that we can have an open borders policy. I think we have to fence the borders. I think we need these commonsense bills to pass without that massive amnesty that our friends would like to attach to it. I urge passage of this measure.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The border security bill that was passed by the House of Representatives is being criticized by the Democrats. But our hearings were not condemned by the media. Far from it, because at our hearings we heard from the border agents, the sheriffs, the investigators, the men and women whose task it is to enforce border security. They called for the border fence that the Democrats opposed. Now the Democrats are referring to their motion to recommit our bill, H.R. 4437. Well, their motion would have gutted this critical immigration enforcement bill. If the Democrat motion had passed, there would have been no provision to crack down on violent alien gang members. There would have been no provision to allow for the detention of dangerous aliens. There would be no provision to crack down on employees hiring those here illegally. Their motion to recommit was meaningless and ineffectual. Only the Appropriations Committee can actually allocate funds. The Democrats know this, and they know that our appropriators over this year and next have increased Border Patrol strength by 2,700 agents. This is the maximum number of new agents who can realistically be recruited and adequately trained in that time span. But in the meantime we have the question of the broader border security issue of whether you are going to erect that fence, whether you are going to allow State and local law enforcement to assist our ICE agents, whether or not you are going to crack down on criminal gangs. Those are the provisions that we are bringing up today and passing over into the Senate. Our hope is that the Senate leadership, Republican leadership, can get past the Democratic opposition this time and get past the argument that all we should do is a blanket amnesty. We tried a blanket amnesty in 1986. It didn't work. It did not work. And the concept that the answer to all of this is open borders and another blanket amnesty is simply wrong. It is a wrongheaded notion. I urge passage.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I think the question is should we put forward a modicum of effort to keep political machines from stealing elections? Do they? Yes. Yes, they do. Just last year, a judge in the State of Washington ruled that 1,678 fraudulent votes were cast in that election. As we look at the work of the FBI, we see that their investigation in the city of Milwaukee found 4,500 more votes cast in that election than there were people on the rolls. They found evidence of people voting multiple times, people voting for the deceased, people voting illegally. And we have the example in the State of Georgia where an audit showed that 5,412 votes had been cast by deceased voters. Personally I am tired of constituents of mine telling me that someone else voted for them at the polls. It seems to me that an ID system or showing an identification, a photo ID, will take care of this problem. How do the American public, how do they react to this? Well, an NBC- Wall Street Journal poll recently found that 81 percent of the American people support requiring a photo ID to vote. By requiring voters to provide a valid form of identification, we can handicap those trying to undermine the process. We can ensure the sanctity of one person-one vote. And we should not have to deal with a situation where our voters go to the polls and repeatedly tell us, somebody else already voted for me.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, let me say, in order to spend the money, you first have to authorize the money. In the Senate, as I rise in support of this rule to consider H.R. 6061, let me say that the Senate has attached to the defense authorization bill language, and this is what is anticipated, that will discuss the building of a border fence. But we want to make certain on the House side as we pass the authorization language and go into conference with the Senate that we disabuse our colleagues in the other House from one concept, and that is the language that would preclude the construction of any border fence without consultation with the Government of Mexico. Let me explain why I think that approach would not be in the interest of the United States. We in California have dealt for some years now with trying to close one breach in our border fence. It is called Smugglers Gulch, a fence that runs from the foothills to the ocean. Through that small 3-mile breach, it has taken 8\1/2\ years to get the California Coastal Commission to go along with closing that fence in consultation, 8\1/2\ years, and it took an act of Congress that we passed here to do it. So if the Senate prevails on this issue, it means no border fence. We need this legislation to authorize the border fence before we go into conference with the Senate. I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I was a cosponsor of the border fence amendment offered by Congressman Duncan Hunter and myself that was added to the House-passed border security bill last September. As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, I held field hearings in San Diego on July 5 and Laredo, Texas, on July 7. We heard from the men and women of the Border Patrol whose job it is to secure our border. We heard from the sheriffs whose deputies have been shot in the line of duty. We heard from Federal inspectors who have smuggled across that porous border the materials for a dirty bomb. And so this hearing that was focused on border vulnerabilities, we heard from these witnesses and we heard them express that the border fence is very effective. The Border Patrol testified as to that effectiveness. Daryl Griffin, who is the chief agent in San Diego, said, ``It is a great force multiplier. It expands our enforcement capacity. It allows us the discretion to redeploy agents to areas of vulnerability or risk. It is one component that certainly has been integral to everything we have accomplished here, raising the level of security.'' A fair question is, how effective has it been in San Diego? Well, apprehensions along the region with a security fence dropped from 202,000 in 1992 to 9,000 in 1994. With the establishment of the border fence in San Diego, crime rates have fallen off dramatically. Vehicle drive-throughs have fallen. San Diego is no longer one of the most prolific drug-smuggling corridors. This amendment puts a fence where it is needed most: in areas that have the highest instances of drug smuggling and illegal border crossings. It allows the Border Patrol to focus its resources and better protect our border. It is past time that we strengthen operational control of all the borders and ports through additional physical barriers and fencing. In this bill is greater use of state-of-the-art technology and surveillance along the Southwest border. Expanding the border fence is needed and it is needed now. The first step is to get the authorization, and the second step is to get the appropriation with the Senate. This last year, I can tell you, just over this last 12 months, over 450 OTMs were apprehended illegally entering the United States from special-interest countries, also from countries that are state sponsors of terrorism. So we see people coming over the border illegally from Afghanistan, Angola, Jordan, Qatar, Pakistan, Yemen. I will give you one example. Mohammed Karani is the brother of a commander of Hezbollah in south Lebanon. He came over the border in my State in the trunk of a car. He paid a coyote to get him across the border. He was later arrested in Dearborn, Michigan. He is serving 4\1/2\ years. He is a member of Hezbollah. He was in the process of securing funds and resources for Hezbollah in the United States. Two border Governors have declared states of emergency over illegal immigration. This is something I think we can all agree upon, and it shouldn't be held hostage to immigration policies. The 9/11 Commission studied the problem. Border security is national security. At some point we have to come to grips with the fact that our Border Patrol agents need a border fence on our southern border in order for them to be able to secure an area where we are now facing infiltration by members of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. We should listen to those agents. There is one who told me his personal story of stopping a man who had been trained in an Afghan training camp, originally from Uzbekistan. This man injured him, actually bit his arm as he was trying to take him down. He told me one of his concerns was, this was the second time this man tried to get illegally into the United States. Post-9/11, we have to be serious about border security. This bill should pass this House.

Mr. ROYCE. Let me just say in this very bill is a study to do just that, and study the northern border as well to look at those areas where people are crossing illegally.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The reason we cannot get the bill through the Senate is because of the opposition of Senator Kennedy and others, and others, to the concept of the border fence. Now the reason that it would be helpful to have the fence is, when you are stopping cars coming through and checking the trunks, if your Border Patrol agents are spread out all along the Southwest, it is a force multiplier to have that fence. You can then deploy more agents to the points where the smugglers bring people in in the trunks of cars.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution marking the fifth anniversary of the al Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States, and, inevitably, Americans are asking are we safer today. Yes, we are. But the unfortunate reality is that this threat to our country continues. Last week, my terrorism subcommittee held a hearing on this threat. We heard the point made that to fight terrorism effectively, we must identify the enemy. As reported by the 9/11 Commission, the catastrophic threat of this moment in history, they say, is Islamist terrorism, especially al Qaeda and its organization. This threat, mounted for years, going largely ignored. Many witnesses observed that al Qaeda, now under attack by the United States and others, has had to reconfigure. But just as the terrorists have evolved, we must evolve too. The desperate need today is to find out who the terrorists are. To do this, we need powerful tools, and they have included the USA PATRIOT Act and other programs we passed. With WMD proliferating, such efforts are all the more important. One area where we did receive a good grade from the 9/11 Commission was on our legislation for a REAL ID Act, to make certain that the next Mohammed Atta and his team of 15 couldn't obtain 60 phony driver's licenses. We established those Federal standards for State driver's licenses to make sure that again they couldn't use something like that to plan and attack and then board jetliners to attack the United States. We made certain also that we passed the PATRIOT Act. Frankly, I believe that most Americans are glad that we have the PATRIOT Act to break down barriers between intelligence and law enforcement officials that hampered their efforts before 9/11. Before the PATRIOT Act, these same tools were already being used to go after drug traffickers. Now, with the PATRIOT Act, we have applied those approaches to terrorists, and Americans are safer for it. I believe we need border security, like the House-passed legislation. Frankly, if that legislation were taken up in the Senate, we would get better grades from the 9/11 Commission. Why? Because the 9/11 Commission understood that border security has become national security. This resolution remembers those who lost their lives on 9/11. That was 3,000 people. Countless more were scarred on that day. But September 11 is also a call to action for our country and a day to recognize those who are in the field taking on Islamist terrorism, including law enforcement officers, Border Patrol officers, and our Armed Forces. We saw many acts of heroism on September 11. We had acts of heroism on September 11, 2006, also, many in faraway lands, and we will see more acts of terrorism in the days and years ahead. Mr. Speaker, as summed up recently by a top British official, the threat from Islamist terrorists is real. It is here. It is deadly. And, as he said, it is enduring. That it is. But it is not as enduring as the spirit of our Nation so evident on 9/11. We will prevail.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we are all very concerned about the reports on Pakistan's programs that appeared this week. I think it was Monday in the Washington Post, but I think it is important to also note that that report stated that the construction on this facility in Pakistan to make these bombs began sometime in the year 2000. So this is not something that I think can be characterized as a reaction to this new initiative with India. I do have concerns about a nuclear arms buildup in Asia. Again, this is something that the administration should be doing more on, working towards a fissile material cutoff treaty. However, I would just respond by pointing out that this agreement gives us a chance to be engaged with India on their program instead of being on the outside as we have been for decades. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Asia Subcommittee. (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, during the course of the committee's five hearings on this agreement members closely scrutinized the relationship between India and Iran, and I think it is fair to say that our committee helped influence India's thinking on Iran. And I think we should all remember that we are getting India's cooperation on Iran. We got two IAEA votes out of India, including a critical vote to get the Iran file to New York. That is the fact about cooperation. We share the gentleman's concern about Iran, but our point is that India is cooperating on Iran. And as we continue to engage India, and this agreement is about India's growing energy needs, as we engage India, we move them away from states like Iran. Rejection of the agreement itself, frankly, could push India, theoretically, back towards countries like Iran. Also, we have Mr. Markey's theme in the bill itself. The bill itself says to ``secure India's full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons capability, and the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction.'' If India breaks this agreement, then we, the United States, will break our agreement with India. And I think also it is important to remember that India and the administration both say that they are cooperating on Iran quietly behind the scenes. Why? Because this is the most effective way to do it. And we have seen the positive results. But diplomacy cannot be certified. The purpose of this agreement is to help establish broad cooperation, to establish a partnership between India and the United States. You do not compel a partner to cooperate. So this amendment is both unworkable and contrary to the spirit of the new relationship we are trying to establish with India. How important is that relationship? Well, we have had two administrations, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, forge closer ties with India and overcoming what we remember only too well, the chilly relations of the Cold War. And last July's joint statement committed each country to a global partnership which has accelerated our cooperation on many issues, including counterterrorism, including Iran. The International Relations Committee have given this agreement close and extensive review. While nuclear energy is controversial in the United States, it is not in India. Like in several other countries, nuclear energy is widely viewed as a critical technology for their electricity, one central to uplifting hundreds of millions of impoverished Indians. So India will develop its nuclear energy sector, not as easily or as quickly without this deal, but it will nonetheless. So this deal needs to go forward. With its growing economy, India is consuming more and more oil. It is competing on the world market, competing with American consumers, for limited hydrocarbon resources. This gives Americans an interest in helping India expand its nuclear power industry, which this legislation does. It also encourages India to move away from burning its highly polluting coal, which is in our interest. By passing this legislation, we also take a step toward internationalizing India's nuclear industry, which I believe would make it safer. The agreement also is likely to increase India's cooperation with us in confronting countries seeking to break their NPT commitment by developing nuclear weapons, as it already has with Iran. India must take more steps, including developing a credible plan to separate its civilians and military nuclear facilities under the agreement. Congress must approve a nuclear cooperation agreement that the administration is negotiating with the Indians before the technology is actually transferred. And as I said, should India break the conditions of the agreement, the U.S. breaks off the agreement itself. So either we continue to try to box in India and hope for the best, or we make this move, we engage India and hope to use our influence to move this increasingly important country in our direction, making India a true partner as we enter what will be a decades-long struggle against Islamist terrorism. That is why I ask my colleagues to please oppose this motion to recommit and please vote for the U.S. and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion to recommit.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As we have noted before, the underlying bill in section 402 already asks for a classified report on India's domestic uranium usage. The gentleman from Nebraska's amendment asks for an additional report building on the report in the underlying bill. We are willing to accept that amendment

Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROYCE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the Berman amendment. I would like to commend the gentleman from California for bringing this issue before the House today, and I know that he does so having studied this issue very closely. The gentleman's amendment would prevent the full realization of this agreement until India has put in place a cap, either unilaterally or multilateral, on its fissile material production. That is a highly unlikely or even an implausible scenario given the dynamics in the region in South Asia. This should, frankly, be a goal, and the administration should be doing more on that front. But it should not be a mandate for this agreement. This amendment is not without merit. I offered a successful amendment in committee that states that nothing in this bill shall violate our Article I NPT obligation not to in any way assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. So I think Congress has made it clear that this is not the intent of the agreement. The gentleman is right that the language in the underlying bill is not as strenuous as his proposal, but there is also an international component to this agreement. We are opening the door for this cooperation with India not only for the United States but for other countries as well, and I don't see how the gentleman's amendment would prevent the nuclear supplier group from approving such trade for other countries, excluding only the U.S. Let me also say I do believe that fulfilling this relationship with India is in the interest of the United States. Indeed, and here is my final point, if this amendment were to pass, it could in fact be detrimental to U.S. interests from that perspective

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the International Relations Committee.

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I will note that the base text of this bill, in section 402, already asks for a classified report on India's domestic uranium usage. But the gentleman's amendment would make such a certification a condition for the deal. Let me also say that people recognize that India has great demand for expanding its energy grid to create electricity for its people. Let me say that the gentleman has taken a unique approach to this issue for which he should be commended. We sympathize with his concerns. However, I do not see the amendment as even workable. I do not know that such a determination with a high degree of confidence could even be made. So I am concerned about terminating the agreement with India on such a certification that cannot even be made with any certitude. Mr. Chairman, for some of these reasons, this amendment was defeated in committee by a vote of 10-32 when it was offered. I urge the House to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his amendment. During consideration of this agreement in committee, members expressed some of the same concerns raised by the gentleman from Florida, and we added language to the underlying bill to alleviate those concerns. I offered an amendment, a successful amendment, in committee that explicitly states that nothing in this bill shall violate our article I NPT obligation, not to, in any way, assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. Now, the gentleman's amendment further clarifies that the aiding of India's strategic program is not Congress's intent. And with that, we are quite prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Concerning, Mr. Speaker, the relationship between Hugo Chavez and Iran, let me explain why this is actually problematic, and we had an effort to bring pressure at the IAEA. We had the board of governors in an attempt by countries to pressure Iran not to go forward with its nuclear proliferation program. It was Venezuela, along with Cuba and one other country, I think it was Belarus, that voted against that effort. Why are these points important? In the fall, there will be a seat on the Security Council that will open up. Venezuela is actively lobbying for that seat. In light of this type of conduct, it is quite important that we point out the facts about the current efforts with Venezuela.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Let me say that last week the Subcommittee on International Terrorism that I chair held a hearing on Venezuela's link to terrorism. On May 15, the State Department designated Venezuela as not cooperating fully with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. Mr. Speaker, from what we heard from the Department officials, it is not that Venezuela is not cooperating fully, it is that Venezuela is not cooperating at all. Disconcerting was the testimony we heard from the State Department that Venezuelan passports can be forged with child-like ease and that the U.S. is detaining at our borders an increasing number of third country aliens carrying false Venezuelan documents. According to a 2003 U.S. news report, thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon. It is not just anti-terrorism in which we see no cooperation, as pointed out in this resolution, it is also counternarcotics, and today, Hugo Chavez, President Chavez, is in Moscow signing a multibillion dollar agreement for advanced fighter jets for attack helicopters, for 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles and a license to build a Kalashnikov factory in Venezuela. He is trying to negotiate two or three submarines, and frankly, these are not helpful in terms of regional stability. It is not helpful that he is traveling to Iran and to North Korea, and it is not helpful when he says he is trying to create a common ideological front against the United States. Frankly, these weapons are to allow his self-described socialist revolution to become a military force to be reckoned with in Latin America. This resolution is an important one, and I urge its adoption.