[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10518-S10523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SECURE FENCE ACT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on a second matter, the issue which is 
currently before the Senate--I know we are in a period of morning 
business, but the underlying issue is the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
  I listened to my friend and colleague from Idaho speak very 
eloquently about the AgJOBS bill. I enjoyed the opportunity to work 
with him in helping to fashion that legislation. We worked very closely 
together and were able to convince our colleagues on the Democratic and 
Republican side of the value of this legislation.
  It demonstrates very clearly a problem we are facing with the 
underlying bill, which is called the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Rather 
than focusing on comprehensive legislation to deal with

[[Page S10519]]

the immigration ordeal with the AgJOBS bill, as the Senator has 
mentioned, which would be valuable and very important in terms of the 
agriculture industry and also providing important protections for the 
workers themselves--a compromise that was worked out over a period of 
years--we are effectively saying no, we are not going to deal with 
that. We are just not going to deal with it. The leadership has decided 
they won't have an opportunity to deal with it, even though there are 
more than 60 Members, Republicans and Democrats alike, who would like 
to deal with it.
  I join comments that have been made by the Senator from Idaho, but 
also by my friends Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and others. We are 
going to have the time here this afternoon. As Senators pointed out, 
this is legislation which is understood and which is very important. 
One cannot pick up the newspapers without reading the adverse results 
of our failing to act. This is something we should be addressing as an 
amendment--I think it is much more valuable than the underlying 
legislation, but we certainly should have had the opportunity as an 
amendment.
  On the issue of the Secure Fence Act, immigration reform is one of 
the most pressing issues we face today. It is a security issue, an 
economic issue, and a moral issue. President Bush told us that it was a 
top domestic priority.

  Many Members in the Senate understood the importance of the issue and 
devoted an unprecedented number of weeks to hearings, markups and 
extensive floor debate to this priority. In May, the Senate passed a 
historic bipartisan bill supported by 64 Senators.
  The House however passed a very different bill last December one that 
has been roundly condemned as cruel and ineffective by religious 
leaders, Latino leaders, and immigration and security experts. It 
focuses only on enforcement and makes it a felony for any Good 
Samaritan to help immigrants. As one religious leader described it this 
week, you could go to jail for giving an undocumented immigrant a cup 
of water in Jesus' name.
  What's more, the bill does nothing about the 12 million undocumented 
immigrants who are here already, and it does nothing about the Nation's 
future immigration needs both vital ingredients to an effective 
immigration policy.
  Common sense tells us that enforcement alone is not the solution to 
today's complex immigration challenges. We can build fences, but people 
will come around them. We can put high tech devices on our borders and 
they will deter some people, but we all know that many others still 
will find a way to come. We can make criminals of the pastors and 
priests who help immigrants, but that is not only contrary to our 
values, it will have little impact on immigration.
  The logical next step would have been for Congress to appoint 
conferees so we could begin negotiating a compromise. That is what we 
do--pass a Senate bill and pass a House bill. Then conferees are 
appointed from both Houses to reconcile their differences on the bill. 
That is what Congress does on critical issues.
  But, instead of rolling up their sleeves and doing the work necessary 
to get legislation to the President's desk that deals with the key 
elements of the immigration problem--that will bolster national 
security, ensure economic prosperity; and protect families--the 
Republican leadership in the House frittered away the summer, 
preferring to embark on a political road show--featuring 60 cynical 
one-sided hearings, and wasting millions of precious taxpayer dollars. 
And after the bunting came down and the klieg lights were removed, 
after all the political hoopla and hot rhetoric, what did they produce? 
A fence.
  Did they do anything about the millions of people who come here on 
airplanes with visas, and stay here illegally after their visas expire? 
No. Just a fence.
  Did they do anything to ensure that employers don't hire people who 
are here illegally? No. Just a fence.
  Did they do anything about the 12 million undocumented immigrants who 
are here already, living in the shadows while working hard to support 
their families? No. Just a fence.
  Yes, Republican leaders wasted time, opportunity, and your money. For 
a $9 billion fence that won't do the job.
  That is just a bumper sticker solution for a complex problem. It's a 
feel good plan that will have little effect in the real world.
  We all know what this is about. It may be good politics, but it's bad 
immigration policy.
  That is not what Americans want. They deserve something better than a 
fence.
  Over and over and over again, the American people have told us that 
they want our immigration system fixed, and fixed now. They have told 
us that this complex problem requires a comprehensive solution. The 
American people want tough but fair laws that will strengthen our 
borders and crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers, but 
at the same time provide a practical solution that will allow 
undocumented immigrants to become taxpaying legal workers who perform 
tasks needed by our economy.
  Today or tomorrow, this Republican Congress will recess for the 
elections, and leave this issue still unresolved.
  I hope that we can use the next few weeks productively to work 
together on compromises that can be adopted when we return in November.
  What is the solution? How do we control our borders effectively? How 
do we restore the rule of law and make sure that immigrants come to 
this country with a visa, not with a smuggler?
  The bipartisan bill passed by the Senate is the only practical way to 
cure what ails us. The only way we can truly bring illegal immigration 
under control and achieve border security is to combine enforcement and 
border protection with a realistic framework for legal immigration.
  It's obvious that we have insufficient legal avenues for immigrant 
workers and families to come to this country, and no path to 
citizenship for the 12 million undocumented workers and families 
already here. The problem is fueling a black market of smugglers and 
fake document-makers, to the peril of citizens and immigrants alike.
  Rather than saber-rattling, chest-thumping, and ranting, the American 
people would like to see both parties and both Houses of Congress come 
together to negotiate a realistic and enforceable policy for 
immigration.
  Piecemeal proposals won't work. They will only make a bad situation 
worse. Those who are here illegally will not leave, but will go deeper 
underground, and those seeking to enter will take even more dangerous 
routes and be less likely to survive. Employers will have an unstable 
workforce of men and women who are afraid to speak up when abused. The 
dysfunctions and pathologies of the current failed system will continue 
to worsen.
  On this specific proposal for a fence, let's consider the facts:
  Never mind that months ago the Senate voted to approve a 370-mile 
fence exactly what Secretary Chertoff said he needed for targeted urban 
areas.
  Never mind that the Senate has voted to fund the fence Secretary 
Chertoff requested. It is in the appropriations bill for the Department 
of Homeland Security that we will pass this afternoon.
  Never mind that DHS has not requested additional fencing. Last week, 
in promoting his ``Secure Border Initiative'', Secretary Chertoff said, 
``What we are looking to build is a virtual fence, a 21st century 
virtual fence .  .  . one that does not involve old-fashioned 
fencing.''
  Never mind that fencing is manpower intensive--you need border patrol 
agents to continuously monitor them to apprehend illegal crossers. But 
this bill will require DHS to construct up to 850 miles of fencing in 
remote, desolate areas, in desert and wilderness areas, and even across 
rivers--where it will serve no security purpose whatsoever.
  Never mind that it will cost billions of dollars. The Congressional 
Budget Office estimate the cost at roughly $3 million a mile, which may 
be on 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 $9 
million a mile.
  As the Congressional Research Service recently noted, the costs may 
be even higher. You need to take into account the terrain, land 
acquisition, environmental planning, private contractors, double 
layering, fence design, procurement costs and a number of other 
factors. We also can't forget the annual

[[Page S10520]]

maintenance costs, which could be as high as $1 billion a year.
  Never mind that fences don't work. Undocumented immigrant entries 
have increased tenfold since the strategy of fencing was introduced in 
the mid-1990s. Since that time, the probability of apprehending an 
unauthorized border crosser fell from 20 percent to 5 percent. The 
United States now spends $1700 per border apprehension, up from $300 in 
1992. San Diego's wall has been a boon for the smuggling industry, and 
increased the loss of immigrant lives by shifting entry to the desert.
  Never mind that fencing will do nothing to stop the 40-50 percent of 
the people currently in the United States who entered the country with 
legal visas and have now overstayed their visas.
  Never mind that fences won't keep out criminals or terrorists. The 9/
11 terrorists didn't come across the Mexican border illegally--they 
entered the U.S. with visas.
  Never mind that fences won't stop immigrants from coming here to 
work. As Governor Napolitano of Arizona recently said:

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

  Narrow, shortsighted, enforcement-only proposals like a fence will 
never fix our broken immigration system.
  We should listen to Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security, 
who recently said:

       Trying to gain operational control of the borders is 
     impossible unless our enhanced enforcement efforts are 
     coupled with a robust Temporary Guest Worker program and a 
     means to entice those now working illegally out of the 
     shadows into some type of legal status.

  A group of former high-ranking government officials has said 
unequivocally:

       The reality is that stronger enforcement and a more 
     sensible approach to the 10-12 million illegal aliens in the 
     country today are inextricably interrelated. One cannot 
     succeed without the other.

  President Bush agreed. In May, he got it right when he declared:

       An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive 
     because all elements of this problem must be addressed 
     together, or none of them will be solved at all.

  What the Republican leadership doesn't seem to get, is that 
comprehensive immigration reform is all about security: Homeland 
security; economic security; family security.
  That is what the vast majority of our people want. They want 
realistic solutions that effectively protect our Nation. They don't 
want piecemeal, feel-good measures that will waste billions of precious 
taxpayer dollars and do nothing to correct the serious problems.
  What can we expect in the next month?
  The Republican leadership has two choices. They can bring us together 
to work out effective compromises for a comprehensive bill.
  Or they can continue to use hard working immigrants as political 
pawns for November's elections.
  I hope that they will not choose the politically expedient choice--to 
embark on another slanderous campaign, featuring more political stunts, 
misleading press releases, and glossy campaign ads about how tough they 
are on the border.
  The Chicago Tribune editorial page understands this tactic. Earlier 
this week they wrote that ``Immigrant bashing is so much easier than 
immigration reform.''
  Sacrificing good immigration policy for political expediency and 
hateful rhetoric is not just shameful--it is cowardly.
  We have the bill to solve this problem now.
  We owe the American people a serious answer on the issue, and our 
Republican leadership should be held accountable for their inaction and 
their inability to address this pressing issue facing our Nation.
  Let's stop this farce. Let's stop playing politics with immigration. 
We know they are wrong. Their scheme will leave us weaker and less 
secure. We can't allow them to derail our strong bipartisan reforms.
  I urge my colleagues to choose good policy over political expedience 
and oppose this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a document that reflects the 50 organizations that are in opposition to 
this particular proposal. They include the LUCAC, MALDEF, La Raza, a 
great number of the religious organizations and others that have 
expressed their views about it.
  Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent to have printed a 
document that includes a number of editorials in the newspapers, 
editorials about the fence from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Idaho 
Statesman, LA Times, and Orlando Sentinel. Then the Tucson Citizen, the 
Waco Tribune--a number of editorials from around the country.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator: The Senate will soon consider H.R. 6061 PCS, 
     the ``Secure Fence Act of 2006,'' which has erroneously been 
     referred to as the ``fence bill.'' This bill goes far beyond 
     the construction of border barriers. It provides 
     unprecedented authorities to the Secretary of the Department 
     of Homeland Security (DHS) ``to take all actions necessary 
     and appropriate to prevent all unlawful entries into the 
     U.S.''
       The consequences of such an immense and vague mandate to 
     the Secretary could result in policies and procedures that 
     would adversely affect American communities at the Northern 
     and Southern borders, and maritime states--wherever 
     ``border'' might be defined. United States citizens and 
     lawful permanent residents would not be immune to the 
     consequences of the extraordinary powers granted DHS in this 
     bill. We must remember that the border is not simply a 
     delineation line; communities live along the border and their 
     rights must be respected. Moreover, DHS must be held 
     accountable for actions taken in these communities.
       Finally, we question the wisdom of delegating such sweeping 
     authority to a government agency. Numerous GAO and CRS 
     reports to Congress cite accountability and management 
     problems at DHS, showing that DHS requires the same 
     Congressional and legal oversight as other agencies of the 
     government.
       H.R. 6061 is a broad bill with potentially harmful 
     consequences for American communities. We strongly urge the 
     Senate to oppose H.R. 6061.
       Signed by over 50 organizations.
                                  ____


Editorials Warn: No Hiding Behind Walls and Fences Voters Want Leaders 
                          With Spine, Not Spin

     Atlanta Journal Constitution (Editorial): `Big fence' 
         blunder: Immigration bill won't root out ills, but it'll 
         fail voters. Put focus on jobs and legalization, as well 
         as security, September 28, 2006
       The only immigration proposal that stands a reasonable 
     chance of clearing Congress this year is a sham aimed at 
     deceiving voters in November.
       The ``big fence'' bill--its centerpiece is 700 miles of 
     real and virtual fences--is a law-enforcement-only approach 
     that ignores the economic underpinnings that have led 12 
     million to 14 million immigrants to live and work in this 
     country illegally. The bill won't fix anything.
       Frist believes there is a chance for a lame-duck session 
     that might pass some of the Senate's ideas for more 
     comprehensive reform. But his position, and that of the 
     chamber he leads, have been irreparably harmed by going along 
     with the House's insistence that immigration is more about 
     security than it is economics.
     Tucson Citizen (Editorial): Our Opinion: Latest chapter in 
         silly saga of border wall--A wall on the U.S.-Mexico 
         border is meant to secure only one thing: the re-election 
         of Members of Congress, September 28, 2006
       The congressional pre-election ploy of pushing construction 
     of a border fence to make voters believe something is being 
     done about immigration reform is a farce.
       ``It's not going to deter people from coming across looking 
     for jobs, people coming to work,'' said T.J. Bonner, 
     president of the union that represents most Border Patrol 
     agents.
       Time, effort and money should instead be spent on something 
     that will work--a comprehensive immigration reform plan that 
     includes a guest worker program and a way to deal with the 
     estimated 12 million people already in the country illegally.
       Legislation passed by the Senate earlier this year deals 
     with those issues. It's the way to deal with this complex 
     issue.
     Dallas Morning News (Editorial): Memo of Understanding Bush 
         needs commitment on immigration, September 28, 2006
       Before President Bush agrees to the border security 
     measures Congress is rushing to put on his desk, he should 
     make sure of one thing--that House and Senate leaders are 
     committed to taking up the other critical parts of the 
     immigration solution after the November elections.
       Without that agreement, which can be struck in private if 
     that's the only way conservative Republicans will sign it, 
     Americans won't get a better answer to what to do about the 
     12 million illegal immigrants living here and 400,000 coming 
     annually.
       Otherwise, Congress can build all the fences in the world 
     and place agent on top of agent, and still not stop illegal 
     immigration.

[[Page S10521]]

       The president is right: America can't solve its immigration 
     challenge without a comprehensive answer. He's not going to 
     get it unless he plays hardball.
     Hartford Courant (Editorial): Immigration Politics, September 
         28, 2006
       Senate and House Republican leaders might as well forget 
     about immigration legislation before adjourning for the 
     November election. The issue is important, but illegal 
     immigration doesn't constitute an imminent national threat. 
     The issue deserves dispassionate consideration that's absent 
     in this election season.
     Chicago Tribune: Border bashing, September 27, 2006
       Many of the bits and pieces are already included in the 
     Senate's bill, but they need to be balanced by measures that 
     address the country's dependence on immigrant labor. Take 
     that $2 billion border fence. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano 
     has no confidence it would stop immigrants from crossing into 
     her state illegally in search of jobs. ``Show me a 50-foot 
     wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder,'' she has said.
       The Senate's comprehensive plan is rooted in reality. It 
     would open channels through which enough workers could arrive 
     legally, and it would offer a way for many of the 12 million 
     who are already here to stay.
       The House is having none of that, at least until after the 
     election. Immigrant bashing is so much easier than 
     immigration reform.
     Orlando Sentinel: Barrier to success Our position: Building a 
         fence along the Mexican border is not the answer to 
         immigration reform. September 27, 2006
       With the Senate considering a proposal to build a 700-mile 
     fence along the southern border, the symbolism is obvious: 
     Our leaders are squeezing themselves into a corner regarding 
     serious immigration reform. The enforcement-only concept 
     echoes the sentiments of the House, which passed a similar 
     bill earlier this month. Bipartisan support is a good thing 
     when addressing viable solutions. This isn't one of them.
       Several members of the Senate, including Mel Martinez of 
     Florida, have concerns about the cost of fencing and 
     mandating locations without consulting state and local 
     governments. Building a fence also endangers the chances for 
     comprehensive reform because the House will not be motivated 
     to move from its position. Meanwhile, the dicey issue of how 
     to effectively get a handle on an estimated 12 million 
     illegal immigrants in the United States remains unanswered.
     Santa Fe New Mexican: Playing with figures to close our 
         borders, September 27, 2006
       In its rush to pass a slam-the-door and fence-'em-out 
     immigration bill, some members of the House of 
     Representatives are touting the measure's fiscal 
     responsibility. One Senate version of immigration reform, 
     moribund for the moment amid the border-wall debate, but 
     still salvageable, includes provisions that would give 
     undocumented workers a chance to work here legally--a notion 
     also supported by President Bush, the former Texas governor.
       We can't afford it, say representatives touting instead a 
     700-mile addition to the border fence, forgetting for a 
     moment that so much steel and concrete carries its own li'l 
     cost. Instead, they pull out a study by the Congressional 
     Budget Office saying that the Senate bill would set our 
     country back by more than $120 billion over 10 years. Even 
     that amount is chicken feed compared with the cost of our 
     Iraq invasion. But it turns out that they're fudging those 
     figures. Robert Greenstein and James Homey of the Center on 
     Budget and Policy Priorities recently reported what they 
     figure is the real cost of sensible immigration reform:
       Nothing--or maybe even a slight monetary gain.
     (Tucson) Arizona Daily Star: Border series' findings are a 
         call to reason
       Our view: We believe it demonstrates that building fences 
     would accelerate havoc without halting illegal immigration, 
     September 27, 2006
       The Star sent a six-member investigative reporting team to 
     the U.S.-Mexican border for three weeks this summer. It 
     explored the border's geography, ecology, economy and culture 
     from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.
       The results of the Star team's work, which has been 
     presented during an in-depth, four-part series that began 
     Sunday and concludes today, came to a single conclusion: 
     Sealing the border won't work.
     South Florida Sun-Sentinel: Immigration, September 27, 2006; 
         Issue: Some ``reforms'' move forward.
       Why is all this important? Because while hardliners in 
     Congress have demanded tough immigration reform year after 
     year, they haven't provided the funding to support those 
     efforts. As a result, Americans are right to be skeptical 
     that the attention on immigration reform, which leaves 
     out resolving the status of those undocumented immigrants 
     already in the country without permission, is more about 
     November politics than sound public policy.
       Bottom Line: Half-measures and poor funding suggest playing 
     politics is the priority here.
     Lowell (MA) Sun: Political posturing, September 27, 2006
       The U.S.-Mexico border-fence proposal is midterm election 
     posturing by politicians hoping to come across as tough on 
     illegal immigration. U.S. Rep. Marty Meehan was exactly right 
     when he said the Secure Fence Act does nothing to protect our 
     borders; instead it delays long-overdue, comprehensive 
     immigration reform.
       Regrettably, House Republicans this summer blocked a 
     broader immigration overhaul spearheaded by U.S. Sens. Ted 
     Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz. Their plan holds 
     out the promise of fixing a broken system while bringing 
     honor to the American people for trying to help those seeking 
     a better quality of life.
     Philadelphia Inquirer: Immigration Reform: Congress' sound 
         and fury, September 26, 2006
       After doing almost nothing, and as session's end looms 
     before an all-out sprint to Election Day, solons want to have 
     ``something to show'' prospective voters.
       So they're throwing up a wall--or at least the Secure Fence 
     Act. They hope voters think it's proof they're doing 
     something. It's not. As mural art goes, this bill's a 
     whitewash, a smear, legal wallpaper. A leaky, look-nice wall 
     just won't substitute for real, hard work. To Congress: Cut 
     the vague talk of ``filling in the blanks'' once you return. 
     There are far too many gaps in the wall. If you don't really 
     address immigration, voters should brick you up and wall you 
     out of Washington.
     New York Times: Immigration Reform, in Pieces, September 26, 
         2006
       Republican leaders want you to think they are hard at work 
     overhauling the broken immigration system in the last days 
     before going home. But don't be fooled by the noise and dust. 
     These are piecemeal rehashes of legislation the House passed 
     last December. . . . Once again it's up to the Senate to 
     resist the restrictionist free-for-all. Republicans have been 
     trying to make this difficult by seeking to slip their toxic 
     measures into must-pass bills for the Homeland Security and 
     Defense Departments. The senators who have held out for 
     comprehensive reform, which includes giving immigrants a 
     realistic way to work and get right with the law, must stick 
     together to defeat the House campaign.
     Seattle Times: Broad immigration reform, not fences, 
         September 26, 2006
       Immigration reform is urgent, but not so urgent the U.S. 
     Senate should abandon its responsible approach and embrace 
     shortsighted House bills this week.
       That appears to be Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan 
     as he presses for a vote just weeks before a contentious 
     election. He wants the Senate to vote on items common to the 
     House's enforcement-only approach and the broader Senate 
     version. But that would leave out a critical element for 
     meaningful immigration reform.
       Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter is right to 
     resist Frist's approach and insist on a common-ground 
     compromise. The Pennsylvania Republican has been a wise voice 
     for a holistic approach to the dilemma that is immigration 
     reform. . . The other senators who voted for the broader bill 
     should hold their ground.
     Idaho Statesman: Our View: Fence is hardly immigration 
         ``reform'', September 26, 2006
       If Congress fails to pass meaningful and realistic 
     immigration reform this session, voters should hold lawmakers 
     accountable for their embarrassing performance. Voters should 
     not be swayed by tough talk that doesn't even come with the 
     spending commitments needed to back it up.
       Yet, as Congress gets ready to adjourn for the year--and 
     return home for the November election--the centerpiece of 
     immigration ``reform'' could well be a 700-mile fence built 
     along the U.S.-Mexican border.
     St. Petersburg Times: Fence fallacies: On immigration, 
         Congress can't get beyond simplistic solutions, September 
         26, 2006
       Beware of members of Congress offering simplistic solutions 
     to complex problems days before leaving town and just weeks 
     before an election. That's what is happening on illegal 
     immigration . . .
       While a fence on certain stretches of border might be part 
     of an overall security plan, to suggest that it solves any 
     significant portion of the immigration puzzle is a ruse. 
     Congress doesn't have the backbone to address the real issues 
     and honestly negotiate the differences between a narrow House 
     bill that addresses border security and a more comprehensive 
     Senate bill that also provides an avenue to citizenship for 
     some of the illegal immigrants who are already here.
       A recent poll found that 1 person in 4 approves of the way 
     Congress is handling its job. Is that person paying 
     attention?
     Boston Globe: Good fences make bad law, September 25, 2006
       President Bush has said he would sign the House-backed 
     bills as ``an interim step.'' And Senate majority leader Bill 
     Frist has called the fence bill a ``first step.'' This is a 
     tactical error. If enforcement-only bills pass now, the House 
     will have no motivation to follow up with real reform.
       The Senate should vote down the fence bill, which it is 
     expected to take up this week, and similar short-sighted 
     House bills. There's still a chance to make history instead 
     of self-serving headlines.
     Santa Cruz (CA) Sentinel: As We See It: Getting tough not 
         enough on immigration, September 25, 2006
       Yes, border security must be improved. But if nothing more 
     than walls and fences and more enforcement happens before 
     November, then both the Senate and House, and

[[Page S10522]]

     President Bush, must start over on meaningful immigration 
     reform in 2007.
       The real answer is to provide people who want to work a way 
     to get to America, even to stay here, to fill jobs that need 
     workers. Providing for such immigrants is an American value 
     that should be a campaign issue.
     San Diego Union-Tribune: Running scared GOP leadership warily 
         awaits voters' verdicts, September 25, 2006
       Predictably, lawmakers are focused like lasers on getting 
     over that hurdle and either keeping power or taking it. 
     That's not what they should be concerned about. The public is 
     furious and frustrated with the folks they hired to represent 
     them. And, it seems to us, public servants should be 
     responsive to that and make it a point to do things 
     differently from here. Not because it would spare them one 
     fate or another in six weeks, but because the demands of 
     leadership require it.
       Above all, they should learn the real lesson in all this--
     that it's better to roll up your sleeves and do something and 
     try to make it work than to do nothing and hope no one 
     notices. Because someone always does.
     Miami Herald: Wanted: effective, comprehensive reform 
         Immigration: Our Opinion: Reject Punitive Bills, 
         Political Games, September 24, 2006
       The resurgence of these measures only confirms that the 
     bipartisan push for comprehensive reforms, led by the Senate, 
     is dead this year. What's left is a misguided move by 
     Republican House leaders trying to maintain their majority. 
     Their goal is to gain political capital in November elections 
     by passing punitive immigration laws.
       Yet both parties risk a voter backlash by not addressing 
     the central immigration issue: that the U.S. economy creates 
     more jobs than natives can fill. When Americans see unpicked 
     crops rotting (as has happened with Florida oranges, 
     California pears and Idaho potatoes), restaurants' stacked-up 
     dirty dishes and unmanned construction sites, they should 
     hold Congress accountable. These objectionable bills will 
     make matters worse:
     L.A. Daily News: Inde-fence-ible: Fixing immigration problem 
         requires a lot more than a fence, September 24, 2006
       While it's too late for comprehensive immigration reform 
     before the midterm elections, the fence can't be the last 
     word on immigration reform. U.S. lawmakers must not be 
     allowed to let this issue fade because of its political 
     difficulty.
       Of course, the safety and security of Americans means that 
     we must have some sort of control over the borders, and have 
     a reasonable knowledge of who is in the country. But we also 
     need a sane system of bringing workers to the United States 
     for agriculture and other jobs traditionally held by 
     immigrants, as well as a way to bring the illegal immigrants 
     here out of the shadows.
     The (Nashville) Tennessean: Fence sign of failure on 
         immigration issue, September 24, 2006
       With no practical use, the fence will be a constant, costly 
     reminder of Congress' failure on immigration. And so this 
     nation's lie will continue: As politicians vow to take 
     measures to prevent illegal immigration, U.S. businesses and 
     farms will keep hiring needed workers.
       Senators seem to believe that a fence is better than no 
     immigration legislation at all. But if they pass this bill, 
     they give away all their leverage to the lawmakers--and there 
     are plenty of them--who only want the fence because it allows 
     them to brag about being tough on immigration without 
     enraging the businesses that benefit from the dysfunctional 
     system.
       The Senate bill is called the Secure Fence Act; a better 
     name would be the Whitewash Bill.
     Palm Beach Post: A fence, but no solution, September 24, 2006
       Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano understands better than 
     anyone in Washington the limits of fences. ``You show me a 
     50-foot wall,'' she says, ``and I'll show you a 51-foot 
     ladder at the border.'' Last week, Boeing won a $67 million 
     government contract to supplement the metal fence with a 
     high-tech ``virtual fence'' using cameras, sensors and 
     unmanned planes. Eventually, someone is sure to invent the 
     51-foot virtual ladder.
       Voters won't get anything resembling an honest debate on 
     comprehensive immigration reform until Congress reconvenes 
     after the election, which is the time line House Republicans 
     want for themselves.
     Washington Post: Immigration Ugliness Without objection from 
         the president, September 22, 2006
       The cynical immigration endgame of the 109th Congress isn't 
     particularly surprising. But after a session in which the 
     Senate actually managed to produce a bipartisan, 
     comprehensive measure to overhaul the existing system, the 
     latest, enforcement-only developments are nonetheless 
     disappointing and dangerous . . .
       Yesterday, the House passed another batch of immigration-
     related measures, the worst of which would deputize state and 
     local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration 
     laws. The measure would permit, but not require, state and 
     local police to arrest and detain illegal immigrants for even 
     civil violations of federal immigration law. This would 
     undermine the ability of law enforcement to deter and 
     prosecute violent crime. As New York Mayor Michael R. 
     Bloomberg told the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, ``Do 
     we really want people who could have information about 
     criminals--including potential terrorists--to be afraid to go 
     to the police?''
     New York Daily News: GOP barriers to reforms, September 22, 
         2006
       The 700-mile fence that the Republicans plan to build on 
     the Mexican border at a cost of billions has a place on the 
     immigration to-do list. But they now appear on their way to 
     converting ``enforcement first'' reform into a policy of 
     enforcement only. Some of their ideas are just plain awful.
       True immigration reform--as President Bush proposed this 
     year--would offer more opportunities for legal entry, even as 
     the government gets tough with those who trespass. That means 
     creating guest worker programs and giving undocumented aliens 
     already in the country the opportunity to come out of the 
     shadows, pay a fine and eventually earn citizenship. Only by 
     relieving the pressure for more legal immigration can we ever 
     hope to regain control of our borders.
       If Congress fails to revisit immigration after Election 
     Day, we'll be stuck with the illusion of reform. Millions of 
     hardworking immigrants will be treated as criminals rather 
     than as future citizens. And millions more will join them, 
     fence or no fence.
     Arizona Republic: House fumbles reforms, September 22, 2006
       But lawmakers get no prize for resurrecting--piecemeal--
     some of the elements of the enforcement-only bill the House 
     passed late last year. That bill sparked national protests in 
     the spring.
       If House leadership believed that approach was the 
     solution, the House should have joined in conference this 
     summer to resolve differences with the Senate's comprehensive 
     immigration reform bill. That's how Congress handles 
     competing bills.
       Instead, the House rejected the hard and politically risky 
     work of negotiation, and held a series of lopsided 
     presentations around the country. In Arizona, the so-called 
     hearings were highly staged, excluded real debate and 
     relegated the public to the status of spectator.
       Now we get a flurry of enforcement-only bills that let 
     House members crow about doing ``something.'' It is the wrong 
     ``something.''
     Wall Street Journal: The Great Wall of America, Review & 
         Outlook, September 21, 2006
       The only real way to reduce the flow of illegal Mexican 
     immigration is to provide a legal, orderly process to match 
     open American jobs with workers who want to fill them. Mr. 
     Bush is for that, and so is the Senate, but House Republicans 
     have concluded that they're better off building fences. When 
     Ronald Reagan spoke of America being a ``shining city on a 
     hill,'' he wasn't thinking of one surrounded by electrified 
     barbed-wire fences.
     Los Angeles Times: Tear Down This Wall Bill, A 700-mile fence 
         without comprehensive reform does nothing to address the 
         root causes of illegal immigration, September 21, 2006
       A wall is fine, but not by itself. Addressing border 
     security alone won't fulfill the economy's need for a legal 
     supply of labor, and it will leave millions of illegal 
     immigrants already here hidden in a vast underground. And 
     fence or no fence, the 45% of illegal immigrants who overstay 
     legal visas instead of returning across the border would 
     continue to do so.
       If the Senate passes piecemeal enforcement measures, it 
     will erode its ability to negotiate a more comprehensive 
     approach with House leaders who myopically insist on treating 
     immigration solely as a law enforcement issue
     San Antonio Express-News: Fence along border only half a 
         solution, September 20, 2006
       But until the House is willing to work out its impasse with 
     the Senate--and the White House--over a comprehensive 
     immigration overhaul, any suggestion that a fence alone will 
     stop the bleeding is merely wishful election-year thinking.
     New York Times: Immigration's Lost Year September 19, 2006
       Real immigration security means separating the harmful from 
     the hard-working. It means imposing the rule of law on the ad 
     hoc immigrant economy. It means freeing up resources so that 
     overburdened law-enforcement agencies can restore order at 
     the border and in the workplace. It means holding employers, 
     not just workers, responsible for obeying the law. And it 
     means tapping the energy of vast numbers of immigrants who 
     dream of becoming citizens and who can make the country 
     stronger.
       These are huge tasks, and the anti-immigrant forces have 
     nothing to contribute. They are out of ideas, except about 
     getting re-elected. Their calculated inaction and half-
     measures mock Americans' support for comprehensive reform, 
     which has been repeatedly confirmed in opinion polls.
     Tucson Citizen: Our Opinion: No remedy for immigration woes 
         this year, September 19, 2006
       Indeed, if U.S. representatives believe a 700-mile fence 
     will shut down immigration along our 2,000-mile border, we 
     have a swell bridge we'd like to sell them.
       What would a border fence cost?
       At least $2.2 billion--enough to add 2,500 Border Patrol 
     agents for five years, or to increase by 15 times U.S. 
     spending on economic development in Mexico over the next five 
     years. . . .
       The push for a fence is political, not productive.
       We urge House members to forget about appealing to voters 
     and focus on a realistic,

[[Page S10523]]

     effective and comprehensive approach to reform our illegal 
     immigration policy. Nothing will improve until they do.
     The (Springfield, MA) Republican: With eye on elections, 
         House votes on fence, September 19, 2006
       There has been much nonsensical talk around the matter of 
     illegal immigration. And now there's been an extraordinarily 
     nonsensical vote to go with all that blather.
     Waco (TX) Tribune: Border fence more stunt than solution, 
         September 18, 2006
       On a vote of 283-138, the House passed a Republican-written 
     bill authorizing the construction of about 700 miles of fence 
     along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico.
       That's it. Shell out more than a billion tax dollars to 
     build a partial fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. This 
     legislation doesn't come within shouting distance of 
     meaningful.
       Voters should consider the unfunded partial-fence bill 
     passed last week by the House as little more than an 
     election-year stunt.
     San Francisco Chronicle: Border fences--and fantasies, 
         September 17, 2006
       So when House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said last 
     week that ``Republicans believe we can have a no-penetration 
     border'' and that ``if we build a fence, they will no longer 
     come illegally,'' he was operating in the realm of politics, 
     not reality.
       What's needed is a far more sophisticated response to the 
     immigration problem. A fence is likely to exacerbate the 
     problem rather than resolve it.
     Orlando Sentinel: Stall game, September 17, 2006
       It's time the House and Senate tear down the partisan 
     fencing that keeps America divided, and find a solution to a 
     problem that is theirs--and theirs alone--to fix.
     Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA): Border policies 
         review welcome, but fence is not, September 17, 2006
       The fence strikes us as pre-election pandering so that 
     lawmakers can go home to their districts and say they're 
     cracking down on illegal immigration. But a wall won't cut 
     it, if history is any guide.
     East Valley Tribune (Scottsdale/Mesa, AZ): A meeting at the 
         fence, September 17, 2006
       Just as the 1986 reforms failed to stop illegal immigration 
     because promised border and workplace enforcement didn't 
     follow, a single-minded approach now to this complex program 
     would drive illegal immigrants and human smugglers to take 
     even greater risks to scale fences and sneak past border 
     agents, while ignoring a huge shadow underclass of people 
     living and working among us.
       Arizona and all Americans deserve better from Washington.
     Boston Herald: House hammers its message home, September 16, 
         2006
       The House had an opportunity to achieve real reform on 
     immigration, but the hard business of negotiating a 
     compromise with the Senate doesn't make for a pithy campaign 
     slogan. Easier to say ``I voted in favor of a fence along the 
     border. Twice.''
     South Florida Sun-Sentinel: More `part' measures on 
         immigration, September 16, 2006
       Congress has had plenty of time to address this issue, but 
     has chosen to use it as a political football in the upcoming 
     elections. Now the GOP leadership says it wants changes 
     approved in bits and pieces.
       Piecemeal approaches, however, are what stymied immigration 
     reform in the first place.
     Lompoc (CA) Record: Immigration, long fences and workers, 
         September 15, 2006
       This nation needs immigration reform and secure borders, 
     but it needs a law that makes sense. Building a new fence 
     doesn't make sense, and will only line the pockets of fencing 
     contractors, while having little or no effect on the flow of 
     illegal immigrants.
     The Tennessean: Why no immigration bill?, September 12, 2006
       Leaders from both parties vowed that 2006 would be the year 
     for immigration reform. Yet by their inaction, members of 
     Congress have marked 2006 only as the year for immigration 
     rhetoric.
       The House and Senate have passed vastly different versions 
     of immigration reform. Leaders now say that the differences 
     are too great to be reconciled.
       That's not true. Both bills include serious provisions 
     about border security. Those provisions create enough common 
     ground for Congress to reach compromise on other elements, 
     including a guest worker program.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I ask for 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________