Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Ilegal Immigration Control Act of 2005

BORDER PROTECTION, ANTITERRORISM, AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CONTROL ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - December 15, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, rise in strong opposition to this bill, which fails to provide the strengthened border security our nation needs to deter terrorists while also leaving many of our internal immigration problems unresolved. This bill claims to address the problem of illegal immigration, but it offers an enforcement-only solution, where a comprehensive strategy is needed. I planned to offer two amendments to improve this bill, Mr. Speaker, but the Republican-controlled Rules Committee refused to permit them to be debated and voted on today on the House Floor. Many of my colleagues also were blocked from offering important amendments.

Shutting out more than 100 amendments certainly represents serious ``sins of omission'' by this Republican Congress. There are also many ``sins of commission'' tucked into this bill. For example, the bill:

Subjects members of churches and other humanitarian organizations to criminal penalties of up to 5 years in prison if they provide food, shelter, or health care to undocumented immigrants, even if they are in desperate or life-threatening circumstances; and the bill

Reclassifies 11 million undocumented immigrants--including children--as aggravated felons who could be arrested and imprisoned for more than a year if they are caught.

These provisions do not make us safer. Mr. Chairman, and they do not reflect the values of our nation.

The first amendment I planned to offer today would have tightened security on the millions of cargo containers that enter our country from overseas, from Mexico and from Canada. Seven million cargo containers arrive at U.S. ports every year. These containers represent an important component of our economy, providing consumers with an enormous array of choices. In Massachusetts, the port of Boston--which became an international cargo port in 1630 and is the oldest continually active major port in the Western Hemisphere--handles 1.3 million tons of general cargo and 12.8 million tons of bulk fuel cargos every year. Clearly, such global commerce is critical to the economic health of our country.

At the same, however, cargo containers represent tempting targets for terrorists. Arms control expert Graham Allison has said that ``more likely than not'', there will be terrorist attack using a nuclear bomb in our country. He has described the detonation of a nuclear explosive device in a cargo container in one of our ports as a nightmare scenario for our country. Steven Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former officer in the Coast Guard, wrote in his book America the Vulnerable about ``catastrophic consequences of terror in a box'' delivered by a cargo ship to one of our ports.

To balance the need to participate in the global economy and the security concerns associated with the millions of cargo containers entering our ports every year, the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Security division developed the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). Under C-TPAT, shippers commit to improving the security of their cargo shipments, and in return, they receive a range of benefits from our government.

Specifically, if shippers provide information about their operations to Customs and Border Protection, their goods are less likely to be inspected at the border. They basically receive an ``E-Z Pass'' from our government, sort of like drivers who speed right through toll booths without having to stop.

The problem is that Customs and Border Protection grants these special benefits without verifying that the security information provided by the shippers--is reliable, accurate and effective. According to the GAO, Customs and Border Protection has conducted validations at the facilities of only 11 percent of all the C-TPAT members. [''Key Cargo Security Programs Can be Improved,'' May 26, 2005]

Basically, the C-TPAT program really is a ``STAND PAT'' program. It takes a complacent posture towards port security by giving companies the benefit of speedy approval at the border without checking to make sure that promised security measures actually are in place at their facilities.

Customs and Border Program also has a related program, called ``FAST'', which stands for Free and Secure Trade program. The FAST program requires that trucking companies subject their drivers to background checks and participate in the C-TPAT program. Again, the problem is that the truckers get waved through the FAST lane, but the trucking companies' facilities are rarely, if ever, inspected to validate that the security policies they've promised to implement are fact or fiction.

This makes the FAST program, really the ``FAST ONE'' program, since truckers are pulling a fast one on our country by getting benefits without having to demonstrate the promised security policies.

My amendment would have required Customs and Border Protection to verify the security measures at the facilities of each member of the C-TPAT and FAST programs within one year of the enactment of this bill and twice a year thereafter. Moreover, the amendment would require Customs and Border Protection to establish policies if members do not live up to their obligations under the C-TPAT and FAST programs.

Now, some of my colleagues may argue that we simply do not have the resources to conduct these validations. Or real validations would bring global commerce to a grinding halt.

The numbers simply do not support this assertion. Customs and Border Protection has approximately 100 inspectors to conduct validations, and there are approximately 11,000 ``STAND PAT'' and ``FAST ONE'' members.

If each inspector performed only about 2 validations per week, all the facilities could be validated in less than a year--within 45 weeks or so.

When it comes to these two programs, we should follow the Reagan Doctrine of cargo inspection and Trust and Verify that the shippers are performing as promised.

The second amendment I would have offered today, if the Republican-controlled Rules Committee it in order, deals with the issue of torture of detainees. Mr. Chairman, this issue has received considerable attention recently--and for good reason--but we cannot have a full and open debate today on the House Floor because the Republican majority has shut out my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides that if an alien is apprehended at or between a port of entry or along the interational land or maritime borders of the United States, and is then detained pursuant to the new authorities set forth in Section 301 of the bill, than that alien shall not be transferred or rendered to any country if there are substantial grounds to believe that the alien would be in danger of being tortured, or of being subjected to cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Convention Against Torture already bars the practice of torture, or of rendering persons to countries where they are likely to face torture or other forms of cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment. This treaty was signed by the United States during the Reagan Administration, and ratified by the Senate in 1994.

Despite our commitments under this treaty and the statements made by the Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, reports keep growing of the U.S. sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, including to countries notorious for human rights violations. This practice known as ``Extraordinary Rendition,'' and amounts to nothing more than Outsourcing Torture.

Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture explicitly requires parties to refrain from sending persons to countries where they are likely be tortured.

In order to be able to argue that it is meeting this obligation under the Convention, the Bush Administration has been engaging in a piece of legalistic fiction. The Administration obtains ``diplomatic assurances'' that the transferred detainee will not be tortured, and then based on these assurances, it argues that our obligation under the Convention has been satisfied because there is no longer a substantial likelihood that the person we are sending to one of these known torturing countries will, in fact, be tortured.

In other words, our government is relying on ``diplomatic assurances'' or promises from countries like Egypt or Syria that they will not torture transferred detainees. Based on the word of Syria or Libya, our government is arguing that our obligations under the Convention Against Torture are satisfied. Apparently, the Bush Administration's motto here is ``In Syria We Trust''.

This is outrageous. Is there any Member who thinks that we should accept the word of Syria and Libya--longtime human rights violators?

Here is how the State Department's annual human rights report describes typical Syrian methods of interrogation:

``administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, .....''

My amendment reaffirmed our commitment to the Convention Against Torture. It said that we should not transfer aliens who have tried to enter this country to other countries where they are likely to face torture. It said that we should not rely on ``diplomatic assurances'' from torturers that they will refrain from engaging in torture. Torture mocks the core values on which our nation was founded. And it endangers our men and women in uniform who we send abroad to fight for our freedom.

We should not be sending aliens who have sought entry into this country, and who have been apprehended and detained by the U.S., to other countries where they are likely to be tortured and then pretend to stand against torture. This is wrong.

Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee made in order only 15 of the more than 120 amendments submitted to the Committee. These amendments could have substantially improved the bill on the Floor today. Without these perfecting amendments, I cannot support this flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``No.''