Bennie Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say at this time that there is bipartisan opposition to this bill. I would like to yield 3 minutes to a border State Representative, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, we have two speakers en route, one we just talked to, who assures us he will be here shortly. Mr. Chairman, do you have someone else?

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for two more speakers.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In reference to what the last speaker said, that this is not a fence bill, looking at the title, it is the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Undoubtedly, there is some misunderstanding. The other point I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, we have already voted on this matter. It is already on the books, been sent to the Senate, and basically it is there. We could be spending significant time doing other items like adding Border Patrol agents to a bill, technology, other equipment that we already know that we need. But this unfunded mandate in terms of this fence is unfortunate, because we are just doing and repeating what we have already done in the past. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, putting a fence up really doesn't stop people if you don't put the support system around it. So I would encourage my colleagues at some point to look at comprehensive border security and that approach, as well as developing a comprehensive border security plan. Just because somebody happens to be Jordanian or Iranian or what have you does not make them illegal, and I think what we have to do is do it the right way. If you have a fence and don't have staff to support it, you still haven't done much. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in response to my chairman, I have heard a fence called a lot of things, but hearing it called a ``humanitarian gesture'' is something very new. I guess you learn something every time you are on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House continues its efforts to be known as the ``do-nothing Congress'' by voting on a bill that has already been voted on before. In December, we voted on this fence issue as part of the border legislation offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. King. Then, the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive bill, the McCain-Bush bill, and House Republicans had the opportunity to work with the Senate on a bill that would be voted on and sent to the President to be made into law, but the Republicans decided to do nothing. Then they decided rather than doing nothing they would waste taxpayers' dollars to hold hearings over the summer, hearings that showed that a lot of their ideas, such as the very fence being discussed today, weren't so good. Rather than listening to the American people and creating laws that actually do something, the Republicans have decided to spend the next 2 weeks voting on things we have already voted on. Mr. Speaker, voting on a fence today, especially when it is already part of legislation to be moved, isn't going to solve our border security woes. Indeed, voting on a fence without allocating funds to pay for it is just another example of Republican efforts to sell security on the cheap to the American people. I have seen estimates that just to build the fence is going to cost us at least $7 billion. Where is the money coming from to pay for it? I am from rural Mississippi, and I know that when you build a fence you have to maintain it, mend it, and fix it. How much is it going to cost to maintain this 700-mile fence? Who is going to do it? This fence is starting to feel like the bridge to nowhere that Congress once considered. Mr. Speaker, the British statesman Edmund Burke once said ``All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Congress to stop being the ``do-nothing Congress.'' It is time for us to take a real stand against the forces of evil and move forward with existing legislation to secure our borders. Instead of spinning our wheels passing the same bill over and over again, let us move forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, where I stand, I have to say the majority sure seem like ponies. Last week, we were down here on the floor voting on a horse protection bill. This week, the majority is again on the floor having us vote on a bill that has already passed. This ``one trick pony'' approach to legislating is stale. The majority is out of fresh ideas on how to secure the border, and it shows. Last night, I offered an amendment in Rules that would have provided an all-encompassing approach to border security and ensured that every mile of the border is monitored and secured 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A fence alone won't protect us from those who want to harm us. Even the Department of Homeland Security has come to realize that we need an integrated approach that combines personnel, equipment, technology and infrastructure. The timing of this vote, Mr. Speaker, is bizarre. Why are we telling the Department to build a fence before they have come up with a comprehensive solution? Are we really going to tie up billions and billions in border security dollars to build a fence when the Border Patrol and ICE need more agents and investigators? Estimates on what it would cost to just build the fence alone is in the neighborhood of $7 billion. Once you add the maintenance costs, we are looking at possibly doubling that number. My amendment, that the Rules Committee rejected, would have provided the Border Patrol with 3,000 more agents. We know they need the help. Why else would the National Guard be there now? It also would have added 2,000 new ICE investigators and 250 detention officers. It would have provided the men and women who police the border with equipment they need to get the job done. It would have given them helicopters, all-terrain vehicles, radio communication, GPS devices and night-vision goggles. There are many more provisions in my bill that I am prepared to discuss today, had my amendment been allowed to be considered. But given that there are many speakers who wish to be recognized, Mr. Speaker, I will close. The only thing I want to share is that people talk about operational control. The only way you can do it is comprehensively. This is an unfunded mandate. There are no dollars attached to it. Republicans always talk about unfunded mandates. The priority at this time is not a fence, it is a comprehensive strategy, and because we have no comprehensive strategy for border protection at this time, I am in opposition, Mr. Speaker, to the rule.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island. (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am proud at this time to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for a response.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of all those whose lives were affected by September 11, 2001. I rise in memory of those who lost their lives that fateful day. I rise in support of the families and friends who lost loved ones and exhibited courage and strength in the face of adversity, and I rise in support of the firemen, police, EMTs, soldiers and others who put lives at risk every day to protect our Nation against terrorism. Five years ago, every town, small and large, was jolted by 9/11. In the days and months that followed, Members of this very body vowed to do whatever it took to ensure that an attack like 9/11 never repeated itself. We joined hands and crossed party lines to stand up against an enemy that did not see us as Democrats or Republicans, but only as Americans. We made promises and swore that we would do everything we could to secure America. Five years later, we are still making promises and America is still not as safe as it should be. And five years later, Mr. Speaker, the bipartisanship we had after 9/11 is mostly gone. Indeed, just yesterday, I was disappointed to read that my colleagues across the aisle called Democrats ``clueless'' on national security. Meanwhile, the House majority leader had the audacity to question whether Democrats were ``more interested in safeguarding the rights of accused terrorists than protecting Americans.'' All I can say is, shame on you all for putting politics and partisanship above the security of our communities. Shame on you for using the memory of 9/11 during a charged political season as a coverup for Congress' do-nothing approach to homeland security. There is nothing wrong with drafting a bipartisan resolution to honor our Nation and respect the memory of 9/11, but there is something wrong when this body takes upon itself to pat itself on the back about a few past deeds when we have left the bulk of the work of homeland security unfinished. I ask anyone in this room to tell me whether this resolution gives first responders effective interoperability so that they have the tools and funding to talk to one another, or provide for a sufficient number of Border Patrol or ICE agents as well as equipment and technology so we don't have to tax an overworked National Guard to defend the border, or whether or not this resolution provides adequate funding for protecting our skies, our subways and our ports, or whether or not this resolution reverses the ongoing trend of wasting homeland security funds on bloated Beltway contractors that are making out with taxpayer dollars while security is left along the wayside. I think not, Mr. Speaker. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, ``What you don't do can be a destructive force,'' and that is what I fear. What this Congress does not do today will leave us less secure tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, last Friday I sent a letter to you urging that the House act on a number of proposed homeland security measures that have been offered in this Congress, some dating back as early as 2005. My letter details 21 specific bills that have been written by Members of Congress to protect our country and close security gaps plaguing our Nation's rail and mass transit security, emergency communications, chemical facilities security, cargo container security and much more. I have not yet heard back on my letter. These bills deserve an up or down vote or consideration as stand alone measures by this House. The leaders of the 9/11 Commission said earlier this week that our Nation is still not as safe or prepared as it can be because we have failed to fulfill their ``most elementary'' recommendations. 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean added that ``If everybody in Congress is for recommendations, what happened? How come they're not passed?'' Mr. Speaker, Democrats have already offered to fulfill the Commission's recommendations through these measures listed in my letter. Now is the time for action. That said, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Republican leadership may push through a number of security measures in the House in the next 2 weeks to address certain vulnerabilities in an attempt to show that this body cares about security. While I am happy that we are finally seeing some action on some critical homeland security issues, I am concerned that what will come before this body are shell bills that claim to secure our Nation without allocating the funding, manpower or technology necessary. Indeed, debate is ongoing right now to include FEMA reorganization in the Homeland Security appropriations bill, and my colleagues across the aisle have said that they won't provide funding for improving interoperability of first responder communication systems. Certainly we all remember the failures of 9/11, when many first responders lost their lives because communications didn't work. Yet my colleagues across the aisle are refusing to include interoperability funding in the proposed FEMA reorganization, because the White House doesn't want it. ``Security on the cheap'' is no way to legislate our Nation's future. Americans are tired of Congress giving itself accolades while the Nation's business goes unfinished. America wants Congress to keep its promises and give all our citizens a country as secure as it needs to be. Despite my Republican colleagues saying we Democrats don't have a clue about how to make our country safer, here it is: Join us and pass these 21 measures that provide real security to our Nation. Let's finally listen to the true bipartisan experts on this issue, the 9/11 Commission, and move forward with legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and for him to be the manager.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Los Angeles (Mr. Becerra).