[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 26, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10134-S10136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before the Senate tomorrow, we will be 
dealing with one of the provisions relating to immigration, the 
amendment dealing with the fence on the southern border of our country. 
I would like to address the Senate about this issue and about the 
general issues of immigration.
  We face a clear choice on the bill between two fundamentally 
different approaches to immigration. We are talking about the 
underlying legislation on which the majority leader now has put forth a 
cloture motion, which we will be voting on tomorrow. We will be unable 
to have any kind of amendments to it. That opportunity has been 
foreclosed. I think that is regrettable. I think this would have given 
us an important opportunity for alternatives that have been debated and 
accepted in the Senate earlier this year. That is the way we have to 
deal with it in terms of Senate rules and procedures. That is where we 
are at the present time. We will vote on this tomorrow.
  There is no debate about our immigration system being broken and in 
need of repair. All of us at this point understand that reform is 
essential. The choice we confront is whether we will answer that call 
with a decisive vote in favor of comprehensive reform or whether by 
failing to do so we will defer to the House of Representatives, which 
has an enforcement-only approach.
  I listened to Dr. Land today, who is the President of the Southern 
Baptist Organization--not recognized as being either a Democrat or 
liberal figure--talk about the morality of this issue and also about 
the immorality of the House approach. He commented on a joint press 
conference he read with great particularity and with the language which 
is the approach of the House of Representatives included in terms of 
its immigration bill. He was pointing out that any person of the cloth 
who cares for the least among us, whether it is food, clothing, or a 
stranger, any act of general humanity, would be accused of aiding and 
abetting an undocumented and, under their language, he concluded could 
be both arrested, tried, and convicted.
  He spoke enormously eloquently about the morality of that particular 
House legislative approach and its inappropriateness, and compared it 
to the fugitive slave law wherein innocents were helping free slaves in 
the mid-1800s.
  The recent report of the Independent Task Force on Immigration calls 
immigration the oldest and newest story of the American experience.
  Immigration has always been part of our history. It is in our blood 
and genes. In the beginning, immigrants helped to build our country, 
make it strong, loved America, and fought under our flag with great 
courage. Over 70,000 permanent residents have fought in Afghanistan and 
in Iraq. A number have won medals for bravery and courage. Generations 
of immigrants have settled here, found a nation that rewarded their 
hard work, respected their religious beliefs, and enabled them to raise 
their families.
  Immigrants today are no different. They work hard, they practice 
their faith, they love their families, and they love America.
  Today, more than 60,000 immigrants serve in the U.S. military. Many 
have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for America on the 
battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. That

[[Page S10135]]

has always been the American story. It is what makes America a land of 
liberty and progress and opportunity.
  Reform is a pressing issue today. It is a security issue, an economic 
issue, a moral issue. The question is, How do we secure our borders 
effectively to keep out criminals and terrorists who want to harm 
America and not obstruct the entry of many others who want to continue 
to benefit our country?
  How do we deal with 12 million law-abiding, taxpaying, undocumented 
immigrants and their families in this country? They live beside us, 
worship in our churches, attend our schools, are part of our 
communities. They deserve a fair chance to come out of the shadows and 
contribute fully and legally to our country.
  U.S. businesses that are unable to find the American workers they 
need must be able to draw upon workers from other nations. Both native-
born and immigrant workers deserve to be free from exploitation, be 
paid fair wages, receive the protections of our labor and health and 
safety laws.
  In May, the Senate met this challenge and passed a comprehensive 
immigration bill with effective enforcement measures. Enforcement alone 
and fencing alone will not work. Those who support enforcement only, 
anti-immigrant approach may think it is good politics, but security 
experts agree that cracking down harder on illegal immigrants won't 
result in our regaining control of our borders. Instead they believe 
the Senate had the right approach.
  As Tom Ridge, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, recently 
noted:

       [T]rying to gain operational control of the borders is 
     impossible unless our enhanced enforcement efforts are 
     coupled with the robust temporary guest worker program and a 
     means to entice those now working illegally out of the 
     shadows in some type of legal status.

  Instead of following the sound advice of these experts and focusing 
on solving real problems, the Senate is considering a House bill to 
order the Department of Homeland Security to build hundreds of miles of 
fencing along our border with Mexico--a country that is not our enemy, 
but a close friend, our second largest trading partner.
  The House bill is unnecessary. Earlier this year, Secretary Chertoff 
told Judiciary Committee members that he needed about 370 miles of 
fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers and targeted urban areas 
along the southwest border. The Senate included a provision in our 
immigration reform bill to do that and on August 2 we agreed, by a vote 
of 94 to 2, to appropriate $1.8 billion for that purpose.
  The much longer fence in the pending bill would be a waste of 
taxpayers' money. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would 
cost roughly $3.2 million a mile, which may be the low end. The first 
11 miles of the San Diego fence cost $3.8 million a mile and the final 
3.5 mile section cost approximately $10 million a mile.
  Under more recent estimates, which take into account the cost of 
roads, lighting, infrastructure, terrain, and other factors, the costs 
are even higher. The current estimate also ignores the annual 
maintenance costs which could be as high as $1 billion a year. The more 
than 700 miles in fencing that the House proposes but that Secretary 
Chertoff does not need will result in at least $1 billion in 
unnecessary spending.
  Fences don't work. Undocumented inflows have increased by a factor of 
10 since fencing was introduced. San Diego's wall has benefited the 
smuggling industry and increased the loss of immigrant lives by 
shifting entry to the desert. The track record of the four concentrated 
border enforcement operations in border States shows that tougher 
border controls only enrich smugglers, endanger the lives of migrants, 
and encourage those who overcome the obstacles to settle permanently 
here in the United States.
  Testimony we had before our committee recently from some of those who 
have studied this issue pointed out that up to 60 percent or more of 
those who come here want to work for a while, make some money and be 
able to return to their families and to their community to be able to 
enjoy it. By putting the fence up, we are making sure they are locked 
in the United States illegally.
  Recent testimony from the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office 
concluded that the sharp increase in border security funding over the 
past decade and the near doubling of the number of Border Patrol agents 
over that time have not kept sizable numbers of illegal migrants from 
entering the country illegally. The reason? Jobs were the magnet. As 
long as you have the magnet of jobs, people are going to find ways 
around the fence, under the fence, and over the fence. Until you have a 
comprehensive approach that will deal with that issue, as our 
comprehensive approach does, the idea of putting more fencing is 
basically going to be ineffective.

  For example, the Border Patrol budget increased from $263 million in 
1990 to $1.6 billion today, a sixfold increase, yet during this period 
more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants entered the United States 
each year. In all, nearly 9 million have arrived since 1990. During the 
same time, the probability that an unauthorized border crosser would be 
apprehended fell from 20 percent to 5 percent. The United States now 
spends $1,700 per border apprehension, up from $300 in 1992.
  Nor will fencing keep out criminals or terrorists. The September 11 
terrorists did not come across the Mexican border illegally. They 
entered the United States with visas. Fences won't stop immigrant 
workers from coming here to work. Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona, 
who knows a lot about borders, recently said:

       You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot 
     ladder at the border.

  Fences can be outflanked--and not only over land or through 
underground tunnels. Increased fences prompted smugglers to move 
migrants in boats and transport them by plane to Canada, with its 4,100 
mile largely open border. A recent study of the Pew Hispanic Center 
found that roughly 40 to 50 percent of the people currently in the 
United States illegally entered the country legally. We are going to 
vote on this measure tomorrow in order to stop allegedly illegal 
immigration coming across the southern border when half of those who 
are undocumented today come here legally. herefore, you have to deal 
with that particular issue. That fence issue does not do anything about 
that problem. Our comprehensive approach does.
  More fences would do nothing about immigrants who come here legally 
and then overstay their visas. Unnecessary enforcement measures also 
harm United States relations with Mexico and other countries. A 
``fortress America'' mentality alienates other nations and makes it 
harder to work with them on other counterterrorism priorities. Already, 
the ``muro of muerrte,'' the wall of death, is a rallying call for 
opponents of free trade and other aspects of United States economic 
agenda in Latin America.
  Cardinal Mahoney, of Los Angeles, has pointed out, ``as the world's 
lone superpower and greatest democracy, we possess the resources and 
ingenuity to solve our immigration problems humanely and without 
resorting to the construction of barriers and walls.''
  The United States is facing a delicate period in its current 
relations with Mexico. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will soon become the 
President of Mexico after a very close election that challenged 
Mexico's democracy. Mr. Obrador stated that fencing will increase 
tension and insecurity at the border.
  President Bush got it right in May when he declared an immigration 
reform bill needs to be comprehensive because all elements of the 
problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at 
all. He got it wrong last week when he indicated that the House fence 
bill is an acceptable interim measure.
  We will have the opportunity to vote. I hope the Senate recognizes 
what it recognized during the course of the 2-week debate, and that is, 
the comprehensive approach is the approach that will ensure the 
strongest security at our borders. The law enforcement within our 
country, in terms of the enforcement of programs and human policy, 
recognizes that those who worked hard, played by the rules, contributed 
to their community, have sent their sons and daughters off to war, want 
to be a part of the American dream, who are willing to pay a penalty 
and also go to the end of the line, would be able to adjust their 
status.

[[Page S10136]]

  A comprehensive approach is the way we ought to be going. That is 
effectively the way everyone who has talked about the overall 
challenges of the undocumented and illegal immigration believe is the 
way to go. Sure, we need to do what needs to be done at the border, but 
it ought to be done in a comprehensive way with these other elements.
  This legislation does not do so, will not be effective, and should 
not be accepted.

                          ____________________