[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 35 (Monday, March 27, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2400-S2402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are about to begin this week a very 
significant discussion, debate, and, hopefully, passage of some 
legislation to address what is one of the crucial public policy issues 
we have as a country, which is the question of how we handle 
immigration.
  We are, obviously, a nation which has been built on immigrants. Every 
one of us in this country, except for Native Americans, comes from a 
family that came from somewhere else and immigrated to this country. It 
is a part of our heritage of which we are most proud, the fact we have 
been able to assimilate cultures from around the world and bring them 
to the United States and create America. We should take pride in 
something that sets an example for the rest of the world to show that 
people can gather and can live together and can be productive and can 
produce a nation founded on democracy, freedom, liberty, individual 
rights, and heritage--heritage which has built a matrix of strength for 
us as a nation as we bring together peoples from different cultures and 
we form an America.
  E Pluribus Unum, the line above the Presiding Officer of the Senate, 
says it so well: From many, one. We are, therefore, a nation which 
needs to have an immigration policy which understands that, which, 
first and foremost, appreciates and continues to reward the idea that 
there are people from around this world who wish to come to America to 
participate in this country and to make us a more productive place in 
which to raise their children and to assist us as a nation in being 
stronger economically, socially, and from a standpoint of inner 
strength we obtain from having so many different people participate in 
our country. We always want to be that beacon, that light upon the hill 
that draws the world to us. As long as people want to come to America, 
we know we are doing something right, and we should take great pride in 
it.
  We continue to be a place where people want to come and, as a result, 
we do have issues of how we deal with immigration. But most 
importantly, as we move down this road, we have to recognize it is 
critical that we not do anything which tarnishes or chills or in any 
way undermines that great tradition of America, which is that we reach 
out our arms to people who wish to come here and be productive and 
participate in our way of life.
  However, unfortunately, over the last few decades, and especially in 
an accelerated way as we moved through the nineties and moved into this 
first decade of 2000, we have seen that a large number of people are 
coming into our Nation illegally. They are not following the course 
which is available to become an American citizen legally--to immigrate 
here, to take advantage of our system, and to build on the 
opportunities that are here but to do it legally. That has become a 
problem for us. It is a problem, obviously, from the standpoint that it 
violates our laws. It is also a problem for us in the post-9/11 world 
where we need to know who is coming into this Nation because of the 
threat of terrorist acts against us.
  For the most part, these people who come to our country have come 
here for purposes which are good and decent. They want to have a better 
life. They want to be able to earn a better living. They want to be 
able to give their families more than they had in the nation they left. 
That is a well-intentioned purpose. But they have still come here 
illegally, and we need to address the issue of how we deal with that 
situation.
  This question has been divided into basically two functions. First is 
how we physically control the borders of our Nation and make sure those 
borders are reasonably secure so that we have a decent idea of who is 
coming across those borders and why they are coming into our Nation.
  The second question is how we deal with people who have come here to 
work, to perform tasks which are available to them, people who may 
already be here illegally, but people who still want to come here and 
do it in a way that is within the law. And that, of course, involves 
the debate over a guest worker program.
  On the first issue, I have had a fair amount of interest and 
involvement because I chair the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over 
this question, the Subcommittee on Homeland Security. The question of 
whether our borders are secure is something which, since I have taken 
over as chairman of this subcommittee, has been all consuming over the 
last 2 years I have had the good fortune of chairing this subcommittee 
of the Appropriations Committee. It is pretty obvious to any American 
that our borders are not secure, that we do not know who is coming in. 
We certainly don't know who is leaving. We don't know what is coming 
in, and we don't know, to a large degree, what is going out.
  But on the issue of movement of people, we are attempting to address 
that question. We have over the last 2 years significantly increased 
the resources going into border security. We have increased the number 
of Border Patrol agents by almost 2,000. We have increased the number 
of beds which are available--what is known as detention beds--also by a 
significant number. We have increased resources flowing in to the 
border security area, especially in the area of technology capability, 
trying to set up a system called US-VISIT which will allow us to 
effectively track who is coming into our country on a real-time basis 
through using fingerprints and our databases on fingerprints. We have 
made progress, but we are nowhere near solving the problem.

  I wanted to talk briefly about that specific issue and then a little 
bit about the bigger issue of the guest worker program and how you 
become an American citizen.
  As the Judiciary Committee wrestles with this problem of border 
security, it is important that we do it the right way, that we think 
about it in terms of what is going to get the best results versus what 
is going to get the best press releases.
  To begin with, we do not need a wall across our southern border. We 
don't need it from the standpoint of being able to know who is coming 
across the border, we don't need it from the standpoint of being good 
neighbors, and we do not need it from the standpoint of presenting the 
national culture. Doing that would be the exact opposite of what we 
should do as a Nation.
  There may be sections, clearly, where some sort of fencing or wall 
will be necessary, sections where the commingling of the border is so 
close that it is very difficult to control that section without some 
sort of a definable event which forces people who wish to come across 
the border through a controlled point, but to run a wall the length of 
the border as has been suggested by some of our colleagues, especially 
in the other body, is just anathema to the concept of what America 
stands for. We want to continue to be a society which says we are open, 
that we are a place where people are encouraged to come, and that we 
are a place that reaches out to people who wish to be productive and 
come here to be productive

[[Page S2401]]

citizens. Furthermore, it would cost a huge amount of money, and it 
would accomplish very little.
  So much more could be accomplished through other means, such as the 
addition of a fairly significant but not dramatic increase in the 
number of border agents, if we went up to, say, 20,000--we are now at 
about 13,000--and with the addition of a fairly significant but not a 
dramatic amount of new detention beds and some creative approach to 
detention capability such as using former military bases and the 
facilities that might be available through transient housing. Maybe we 
could use some of those trailers we have sitting down there in Arkansas 
which are not being used. But through creative detention capability, we 
could add the necessary additional beds, and there are not that many 
needed compared to the overall numbers, with creative approaches using 
technology, of which we have an unlimited source of ingenuity in this 
Nation. In fact, every day, it seems as if somebody comes to my office 
with a new idea as to how to create a monitoring system or some form of 
monitoring system through the use of unmanned vehicles, through the use 
of satellite technology, through the use of sensors, which would not 
cost that much. With the creative use of just adding physical capital 
assistance such as new cars, new helicopters, new planes for Customs, 
such as new capacity for the Coast Guard, we could, without a great 
deal of incremental increase compared to the expending which we do in 
other parts of this government, effectively monitor and manage 
certainly the southern border. As a result, we would know who was 
coming into this country across that southern border, which is where 
most of the illegal immigration occurs.
  Would we solve the northern border issues? Probably not. That is a 
little different puzzle. The northern border does not have the huge 
illegal immigration issue, but it does have an equally severe, maybe 
even more severe opportunity for terrorists, people who wish to do us 
harm, to cross. There are other approaches which need to be taken 
there. But as to the southern border, it is totally possible, 
reasonable, and should be done to manage that border effectively with 
the addition of some significant resources, but not dramatic increases.
  I suggested a year and a half ago that if we increased the capital 
resources available to the Border Patrol and the Customs Agencies by 
about $1.2 billion, we could essentially buy out almost all the major 
capital needs they need in order to manage the border--all the housing, 
all the airplanes, all the cars, all the unmanned vehicle monitors, all 
the technology for detection capability we would need. That is a lot of 
money by New Hampshire standards, but in the context of a $1.8 trillion 
budget, it is certainly a manageable sum. So far, that suggestion has 
been stiff-armed by the administration and basically limited as a 
result of politics here on the floor of the Senate.
  In addition to that capital need, which, as I mentioned, is about 
$1.2 billion, there is the need to add new agents, and there is the 
need to increase our capability on the operational side. But again, the 
dollars necessary to do that are not dramatic, not dramatic at all--
probably in the range of $2 billion of additional funding per year. 
That is a lot of money, again, by New Hampshire standards, but in the 
context of overall national defense where we are spending $440 billion 
plus $90 billion on the war on terrorism, for a total of over $500 
billion, an additional $2 billion to secure our southern borders in the 
context of personnel increases is not dramatic and is doable. The point 
is, it would accomplish our goal, which is to secure the southern 
borders.

  I have asked for that to be done. Unfortunately, that has not been 
done--well, that is incorrect. It was proposed by the administration to 
increase the commitment of the number of Border Patrol agents. They 
gave that commitment in their budget submission, but they took it away 
because they tied it to creating a fee, which would increase the 
airline user fee, and the practical result of that would be the money 
which was supposed to be used to add these additional agents would 
never be realized. But it should be done, it can be done, and if a fee 
is necessary to do it, it should be done on a fee basis, but a fee that 
has no relationship to the actual usage.
  An airline fee does not impact southern border protection. The 
airline fee impacts the TSA, and it needs support. It has gone through 
2 years of freeze and should be increased in our commitment there, and 
this fee maybe should be used to do that. But if we are going to have a 
fee, it should be border related, if that is the way it is going to be 
done. In any event, it should be done. We should spend those dollars to 
accomplish this.
  The bill that is working its way through the Judiciary Committee has 
a commitment to these types of efforts, but it is an authorizing bill. 
It doesn't have to find the money. I have to find the money as an 
appropriator, and right now the money isn't there. So the ability to 
accomplish those good intentions isn't there.
  Also, the bill that is coming through the authorizing committee 
creates a number of mandates. It says: This shall be done by Border 
Patrol, this shall be done by Customs, this shall be done by the Coast 
Guard. I am not sure it addresses the Coast Guard, but it has a number 
of mandates for Border Patrol and Immigration, and the practical effect 
of that is that it is artificially directing and redirecting flows of 
revenues and resources, and it may actually, as a result of those 
mandates, end up undermining our ability to effectively address the 
border. As the bill comes to the floor, which I hope will be this week, 
we can discuss that, and I am sure we can deal with those kinds of 
issues.
  But the bottom line is simply this: We can accomplish security on the 
southern border. We can know to a large extent who is coming in and out 
of this country. We can limit dramatically--I mean dramatically; down 
to a trickle for all intents and purposes--the number of people who get 
into this country illegally across our southern border by the 
application of resources which, in the relative context of national 
defense, are quite small and in the relative context of the overall 
national budget are extraordinarily small. If we have to pay for them, 
we should pay for them through some sort of a border security fee. It 
can be done.
  Why hasn't it been done? Because border security has been a stepchild 
around here to national defense for a long time. I find that 
unacceptable myself. If we are going to have a defense budget which 
spends $440 billion, up from $289 billion just 5 years ago, on top of 
which we are spending $90 billion a year to fight a war, one has to 
ask: What is the core defense budget for? It is not to fight the war, 
obviously, because we have to spend the next exceptional amount of 
money on top of it to fight the war, so it is obviously for strategic 
defense, for personnel, for operations, and it is needed, I guess, for 
the most part. But if that is the need of critical priority, clearly 
protecting our southern border is an equal need of national defense. 
Maybe we should roll the border security effort into the Defense 
Department and then we would get the resources for it, although I think 
that would be a bad policy decision, but at least we would get 
resources.
  In any event, in the context of what is important from the standpoint 
of national security, I can't think of anything--well, there are a lot 
of things. I think it has to rank right up there at the top, knowing 
who is coming in and out of this country, when it is our country that 
is at risk. We know these people want to attack us on our soil, so it 
is absolutely critical that we have the necessary resources to protect 
our borders, to know who is coming in and out of our country so we can 
protect ourselves from people who might cause us harm.
  It is also critical that, as a culture, we control this. We cannot 
survive as a culture if we have a massive amount of people coming into 
this country illegally. It just doesn't work. People who want to come 
to this country--and we do want to maintain a very open approach to 
encourage people to come into this country--have to know that if they 
follow the rules and if they come here legally, they are going to be 
able to get in line under the rules and legally and get a shot at 
American citizenship and participating in the American dream.
  So it is critical that we get our southern border under control, and 
it is

[[Page S2402]]

critical that we get our northern border under control. It is critical, 
we can do it, and we should do it. We should have done it long ago, and 
we can do it now, and we should make that commitment to those types of 
resources. As this bill moves forward, I intend to make those points 
and try to get people to look at this in the context of a doable event 
rather than in the context of simply a press release event.
  Secondly, on the issue of immigration itself, it is also obvious that 
we have to have a workable guest worker program. We have to have 
something that says to people: If you want to come here and work and 
better your family, there is a way we can work that out. We can make 
that happen. That takes the pressure off of illegal immigration.
  As we secure the border, it is clear that some sort of effective 
guest worker program is necessary. As part of that overall immigration 
effort, there is one little slice, though, which I believe we need to 
address. It is a small slice.
  Today there is a lottery program where you can essentially send in 
your name and you are put into a lottery, and you have to be from a 
country which is deemed underprivileged, I believe; there is some sort 
of categorization. But if your name is pulled out of a hat, you can get 
on the path to American citizenship. Fifty thousand names are pulled 
out of the hat every year, just as a lottery.
  At one time, this may have made sense, but it doesn't make sense 
today. It is very obvious today that just pulling people's names out of 
hats to put them on the path to citizenship in America is not fair to 
those people who are waiting in line and who have a reason and who have 
followed the process and have a purpose, and it is not fair to our 
Nation. How do we know we want somebody whose name is drawn out of a 
hat to be an American citizen? What benefit is that to us, other than 
that the person happened to be lucky?
  Thus, if we are going to keep this lottery program, I believe we 
should change it over to a lottery program which essentially says: If 
you want to participate in this lottery, you have to have some unique 
talents or skills which America needs, such as a master's degree or a 
doctorate in some sort of science or mathematical capability or maybe 
some foreign language capability, something that America has a use for. 
So I think we should convert this lottery to that type of an approach.
  I note that my time is about to expire and that we have both 
assistant leaders on the Senate floor, so something big must be 
happening. Therefore, I will continue this discussion as we move 
forward on the debate of immigration. But I do believe it is critical 
to understand that resolving the border issue is a very doable event. 
There is no complication to this, it is not subtle. It is simply a 
question of resources, and we can accomplish it with the right amount 
of resources placed in the right place. We don't need new laws to do 
it.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________