Homeland Security

Levee and flood control is a life or death situation for the people of coastal Louisiana, and so, it is very disappointing that this report fails to do what Congress mandated: Give us all the facts and show us what it will take to protect coastal Louisiana.

There are numerous differences between the final text and the report reviewed by the Corps/State Project Delivery Team, the Corps’ Independent Technical Review team, and the Independent Peer Review.  Of particular cause for concern is the appearance that the report may have been altered to eliminate important technical information and proposals.  As a result, the modified report omits many recommendations that could have helped protect the people of Louisiana and the nation they serve.

Clearly, the will of Congress has been ignored.  To get the facts, I have today asked the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee on which I sit to hold investigative hearings into the matter.  We need the facts and our people need protection.

These hearings are nothing more than election year politics -- another smoke and mirrors trick to draw attention away from the real issues. I grew up on the border, I have lived on the border my whole life, and now I represent the border. We live on the front lines of our broken immigration system, and we all know that we need to fix our immigration system and enforce our laws, but enforcement alone does not work - it has failed us the past 12 years. Our border communities want comprehensive reform. We want laws that are fair and that work.

These hearings are critical to making the process work. We are bringing the issue of illegal immigration straight to the American people and they have responded by making it clear to us that control of our borders and the safety of our citizens are the top priorities. The American people realize that the first step in solving illegal immigration must be securing the border. I don't think its any coincidence that the Senate and the President began moving toward the House's 'enforcement first' approach since these hearings were announced. They finally understand that there is consensus on all sides for enforcing existing immigration laws and securing our borders. These hearings will strengthen that position.

I was reading Dick Morris's column today which states that Republican voters back the Senate's Immigration bill and that Members of Congress should line up behind this proposal. Dick Morris may have a nice resume and he may be a sharp political mind, but he misses the mark with Ohio Republicans. I have heard from constituents at town meetings, in emails and phone calls and I know that in Ohio's Fifth District, support for the House version of immigration reform is 5 to 1 over the Senate version.

I am not a "talking head" and I do not worry about predicting elections. For me, this debate has never been about 2006 or 2008. To the 630,000 people I represent, this debate is about whether we are to remain a nation based on the rule of law. In a district which is 5% of Ohio's population and 20% of its farmland, the issue of illegal labor is a hot topic. But to us the issue is simple- illegal immigration is a crime. We can discuss temporary worker programs and the process of citizenship but in Ohio's Fifth District, illegal immigration has nothing to do with party politics or swing voters. To my constituents, this debate is about fairness, consistency, and enforcement.

Our bill is a bi-partisan, comprehensive, common sense attempt to secure America's chemical infrastructure from the threat of a terrorist attack. We believe we have achieved the proper balance to continue to benefit from the products of the chemical industry while at the same time rendering the best defense against potential terrorist attacks.

Posted by Mike Franc, Vice President for Government Relations, The Heritage Foundation

Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, we should expect numerous high-profile hearings in July and August exploring the sensitive security issues raised by terrorist detentions. By September, both chambers will likely devote considerable floor time to legislation that will bring suspected terrorists to justice.  Legislation is the likely route since the Court's decision addressed none of the potential constitutional issues involved. Indeed, nothing in the ruling calls into question the legitimacy of the camp at Guantanamo or the government's right to detain unlawful combatants. No suspected terrorists will be released as a result of the Court's ruling and the odds are that the lead plaintiff, Salim Hamdan, Osama Bin Laden's driver and bodyguard, will not be applying for an opening at your local limousine service anytime soon.  Thus, Congress will grapple with yet another high-profile security issue just in time for the 2006 elections. Americans are hawkish when it comes to our dealings with terrorists. Many are even willing to sacrifice some of their civil liberties in order to prevail in this war.

The need to address Hamdan offers Republicans another opening on a national security issue. Most will oppose any attempt to treat unlawful combatants seized on the battlefields of transnational terrorism as regular criminals or traditional prisoners of war. Democrats may argue for equal treatment, as Nancy Pelosi did. "All," she said, presumably referring to Hamdan and his colleagues, "are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system."

Posted by Ken Gude, Associate Director, International Rights and Responsibility Program, Center for American Progress

More than four years have already been wasted and we are now no closer to a trial of any of the detainees at Guantanamo than we were the day it was opened. In Hamdan v Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that nothing would prevent using the rules and procedures of courts-martial for trials at Guantanamo. At the very least, we could use courts-martial to finally bring some of our enemies to justice. But even that would only be a partial solution and applicable to a small number of detainees.

Another alternative would be to work with our closest allies to create a Special Tribunal for International Terrorist Suspects in order to share the responsibility and burden of detaining, trying, and imprisoning terrorists. This Tribunal should build on the experiences of previous tribunals that have handled some of the most serious threats to international peace and security and should adopt the procedures for courts-martial.

The debate about the future of Guantanamo has lacked legitimate and substantive alternatives. Supporters of the prison refuse to accept that it is a liability and insist that the status quo must be maintained. Opponents are quick to call for its closure, but often fail to take into account the difficult and unique challenges of detaining and putting on trial terrorist suspects. This Special Tribunal addresses each of those challenges with practical policy solutions and presents a concrete alternative to the fatally flawed policy President Bush has pursued on detainees.

This decision is a stunning repudiation of the Bush Administration's lawless behavior at Guantanamo. As we approach the Fourth of July, it is entirely appropriate that the Supreme Court has reminded the President and Secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law, even when our country is at war.

I agree that the President cannot operate alone in this area without the involvement of Congress and the Courts. I renew my call for action on H.R. 3038 -- the Guantanamo Detainees Procedures Act -- that would establish tribunals with clear standards and due process and would provide a timely process to charge, release, or repatriate the approximately 450 prisoners at Guantanamo. Congress must ensure that justice is delivered swiftly and responsibly in order to punish terrorists, prevent future attacks, and ensure swift and just processing of those detained. The Congressional abdication of responsibility in this area over the last three years has resulted in a completely dysfunctional system for the detention of enemy combatants that has weakened our credibility with our allies and failed to meet our own onstitutional standards.

My bill looks towards the future in terms of what energy we are going to be using.  It takes us off of our addiction to oil by funding research and development into alternative forms of energy, such as hydrogen power, solar power, and wind power.

This is all about national security as well.  Our addiction to energy from the Mideast is a dangeorus policy.

This bill brings universities to the table.  Programs like Future Gen will be administered by the Department of Energy in coordination with universities.