[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10590-S10592]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SECURE FENCE ACT
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise tonight to address the legislation
that is before the Senate, the legislation that would establish a fence
along the southern United States border. I intend to support this
legislation, despite its serious flaws. I agree that a physical barrier
is necessary along some parts of our country's southern border.
Last month I visited southern border communities in Texas, New
Mexico, and Arizona, and I recognize the very serious need for
additional security measures there. In El Paso, TX, for example, there
is a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border for about half the city. But
then that fence abruptly ends because, I was told, of lack of funding
to extend it. That is nonsensical: A security fence that only covers
about half of the city that it is supposed to secure.
The day before I toured this area, that one Border Patrol station in
El Paso, TX had apprehended 268 people trying to enter our country
illegally. That is unacceptable, and that is the reason I will support
this legislation. But it is only part of the solution. I asked Border
Patrol agents across the southern border, or the real experts about
what is effective and what is not to protect our border and our
citizens, whether a fence is a good idea. They replied that in some
places it was and in other places it was not. They said it was one of
several additional actions necessary for effective border control.
Yet this is the only measure contained in this legislation. It bears
little resemblance to a comprehensive bill that the Senate previously
passed to strengthen border security and stop illegal immigration. Its
effectiveness, the border control experts told me last month, would be
severely reduced by the absence of a comprehensive approach. It will
further waste taxpayer dollars by mandating a fence where a fence will
not be effective. In short, it suffers from the defects of being the
hastily drafted, last-minute election ploy that it is, rather than the
comprehensive, intelligent, and effective border security bill that our
country needs and our citizens deserve.
Previous attempts to secure our Nation's southern border have failed
for precisely this reason. They were only partial steps where only a
complete solution will be successful. It is stupid for Congress to pass
something that will fail, and shameful for Congress to do it for short-
term political benefits rather than the long-term national interest. I
have no doubt this legislation will pass and that it will be used by
those it benefits between now and the November 7 election.
So I plead with my colleagues and with the House to finish this job
when we return after the elections. Let's have the Homeland Security
Committee on which I serve and other committees claiming jurisdiction
to ask the border security experts themselves what else must be done to
make this fence effective. Let's get the House to drop their political
pre-election posturing and deal with the present and future realities
of our illegal immigration problem by passing key parts of the Senate
bill.
It is necessary to be tough on illegal immigration, but being tough
and stupid is stupid. Let's challenge the House to get tough and smart
about protecting our southern border, as President Bush has proposed
and as the Senate has enacted. But let's not fool ourselves and let's
not try to fool the American people that this legislation by itself
will solve or even substantially reduce the very serious flood of
illegal aliens crossing our southern border.
[[Page S10591]]
This bill is also incomplete and inadequate because it does nothing
to strengthen our national security along our country's northern
border, even though that border spans 5,500 miles and is over three
times longer than our 1,800-mile southern border. Our northern border
has not, as yet, experienced the same volume of illegal traffic as the
southern border. Yet it is even more unguarded and thus unprotected.
There are over 11,000 Border Patrol agents stationed along our 1,800-
mile southern border. There are only 950 agents along our entire 5,500-
mile northern border.
If you are what the Border Patrol agents call an economic immigrant,
meaning someone who is coming into this country for a job, and you live
south of the United States, you will probably try to cross our southern
border. The Border Patrol agents with whom I talked last month in
Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona estimated that over 95 percent of the
people crossing our southern border illegally are doing so for economic
reasons.
The really dangerous illegal entries are by criminals trafficking
people, narcotics, and other illegal activities--and most dangerously,
possibly terrorists. Our northern border is just as much a target of
those most dangerous criminals, and many of them are smart and
sophisticated enough to know that their chances of illegal entry are
increasingly better along our northern border than along our southern
border.
Border security for our Nation is not one border or the other--it is
both. Yet until now most of the attention, most of the policy, and most
of the funding has gone only to southern border security. As I
mentioned before, there are over 11,000 Border Patrol agents stationed
along our southern border, and the major training facility for all of
them is located in New Mexico. But there are only 950 agents along our
entire northern border and no training facility is devoted to that
specialized training.
So I am very pleased that the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security
appropriations bill directs 10 percent of its funding and 10 percent of
the new agents hired to be committed to our northern border. That is
almost $38 million and over 150 new Border Patrol agents, which is most
of what my amendment that was adopted by the Senate would accomplish.
It is a 15-percent increase in the number of northern Border Patrol
agents. It is an essential first step in the right direction. However,
it is only a first step. Much more must be done, and hopefully will
start to be done when we return in November.
I also want to comment briefly on the military tribunal bill passed
by the Senate last night, a bill that I voted against. I want to be
tough against terrorists, as that legislation claims to be. But I also
want to be smart about it, and that bill is not. Its worst provisions
would be applied not only to known al-Qaida members, but also to almost
500 other detainees at Guantanamo who have been imprisoned without
trials for over 4 years, and to over 1,400 Iraqi citizens who are now
imprisoned indefinitely in that country.
Many of them will be eventually found innocent of anti-American
activities and will be released. However, most of them, their families,
and their friends, will hate the United States for the rest of their
lives after being imprisoned for months or years, denied any due
process, many of them tortured or abused, and most of their families
refused information about their whereabouts or even whether they are
still alive.
The recently unclassified National Intelligence Estimate concluded
that the war in Iraq has greatly increased anti-American feelings
throughout the Arab world and has created a new generation of
terrorists. The barbaric treatment of thousands of Muslims has
undoubtedly fueled some part of that growing hatred toward Americans
and has added to the increased threat of terrorist attacks against us.
This legislation allows the continued torture of detainees, denies
them the basic rights to challenge their indefinite incarcerations, and
even strips from U.S. courts their constitutional authority to review
this legislation and the treatment of detainees under it.
It is absolutely untrue--let me say that again--it is absolutely
untrue that providing detainees with those rights would require their
release from military prisons. Under the rules of the Geneva
Conventions, even if an enemy combatant could not be prosecuted, or
even if he were acquitted in a trial, he could still be held
indefinitely as a prisoner of war until the President of the United
States declared that the war against terrorism was concluded.
Finally, providing humane and just treatment to detainees protects
our own service men and women and our intelligence operatives around
the world. A great Republican Senator, Mr. McCain from Arizona, who was
held prisoner in North Vietnam for 5.5 years and who was tortured by
his captors, has said repeatedly that we cannot insist other countries
abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat our citizens humanely if we
do not do so ourselves. In other words, we must follow the Golden Rule:
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
I believe that legislation which we passed last night, which I
opposed, will ultimately be considered one of the darker acts in our
Nation's history, one that has been enacted only a handful of other
times and, in every one of those instances, was regretted and
repudiated later because it violates the values and the principles of
this great Nation.
It is the attempt of terrorists and their desire to drive us away
from those values and principles within our own country, and as we
treat others around the world, so we then become perceived by others
around the world.
We are the greatest Nation on this Earth. We are the most powerful
Nation on this Earth. We are looked to by other countries around the
world as the leader of this world. We need to be true to that
requirement, and we need to be true to our own values and our history.
I believe we failed to do so, tragically and regrettably, last night.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the
Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator yielding his
time to the Senator from New Jersey?
Mr. GRASSLEY. He wasn't going to come in between us anyway. He wants
the 8\1/2\ minutes but not right now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection to the
Senator from Minnesota yielding his 8 minutes to the Senator from New
Jersey?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, the only objection is
about what Senator Baucus set up; that we were going to come in line
afterwards. I don't object to him having the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota still has a little
under 8 minutes on his time, and he is asking to yield that time to the
Senator from New Jersey. Is there objection?
Mr. GRASSLEY It is better to let it go rather than argue about it and
use it up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I thank my colleague
for yielding time, his time. I do not want to take too much time, aside
from my response to what comments I heard here, but I do want to say
that I regret this is among the last opportunities we will have to meet
on the floor with our distinguished colleague from Minnesota, who has
always been forthright on the issues, sticking up for what he believes,
no matter what the penalty.
Mr. President, I want to talk to another issue. I want to respond to
these challenges that I hear on television about where are the--
essentially, and I will inject the word; they don't use it, but they
say--cowards who won't come down on the floor to defend their position?
Who are they? Challenge me on cowardice? You have to look at my record
before they start that stuff.
I was an original cosponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act. That was back
in 1990. I have been an active supporter of this legislation for many
years now. So I do not appreciate some of the lectures I have been
hearing from people who claim that this is a principled issue with them
and that we are being cruel and unfair and all kinds of
[[Page S10592]]
things. It is nonsense. Let's discuss the issue rationally and see
where they have been all these years when we have had practically flat
funding on this critical issue for some 4 years now, not even meeting
the growth in inflation.
I have heard lectures about the effect on minorities. I will tell you
something. The National Minority AIDS Council opposes this bill and
supports our objection.
I ask unanimous consent that a communication from them be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006
Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the National
Minority AIDS Council (NMAC) and our national constituency of
more than 3,000 minority community based organizations on the
front lines of the fight against HIV/AIDS in their
communities, we would like to thank Congress for its efforts
to reauthorize the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources
Emergency Act (CARE Act).
NMAC supports the legislation's goal to retain the current
structure of the CARE Act while seeking to protect care
infrastructures and responding to demographic shifts in the
HIV epidemic.
However, we are concerned that the legislation, as drafted,
does not address the need of all minority populations
infected and affected by HIV/AIDS nationwide, and believe it
needs several improvements before passage in order to gain
our support.
As the nation's largest discretionary spending program
aimed at providing care, supportive services and treatment
for individuals and families infected and affected by HIV/
AIDS who would not otherwise receive access to these
services, full funding for the CARE Act is essential and the
appropriate authorized funding levels should be a high
priority of the Congress in the reauthorization of the law.
Unfortunately, the CARE Act has been flat-funded for a
number of years, even as the rate of new HIV infections is
consistently reported at approximately 40,000 per year.
Full funding for the CARE Act is critically important to
communities of color that have been devastated by the
epidemic. Without a fully funded CARE Act, at $2.6 billion,
many men, women and children of color will not have access to
this care and gaps in health disparities will grow
exponentially.
NMAC supports the direction of additional funding to areas
with high HIV incidence; however, with the absence of
additional funding states like New York, California, Florida,
Texas and New Jersey that have historically been epicenters
of the epidemic may be faced with the destabilization of
systems of care. We believe regions of the country should not
have to advocate for additional funding to the detriment of
other areas seeking to care for those affected by the
disease.
NMAC is also opposed to several other provisions of the
bill, including the inclusion of the Early Diagnosis Grant
Program and the lack of additional funding and resources for
the Minority AIDS Initiative.
If you have any concerns or questions about our concerns,
please feel free to contact Damon Dozier, NMAC Director of
Government Relations and Public Policy at (202) 234-5120
extension 308 or HYPERLINK ``mailto:[email protected]''.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization legislation
that is before us now would shift already inadequate Ryan White money
away from States such as New Jersey where the epidemic first appeared
and where the need is still growing, to States where the epidemic is
emerging.
I have been to an AIDS ward in a hospital in Jersey City. I have
looked in those cribs where those little things are, twitching and
moving because they come from mothers who have been HIV-infected, and
the effect is horrible to witness. These are poor people.
In this State of mine we have five of America's poorest urban
centers. That is where we see the dominance of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
This bill pits cities against cities, States against States, women
against men, and urban areas against rural areas. That is not the way
to do it, if you really care. We need to fully fund the Ryan White CARE
Act. But the majority is not willing to do that. So they are trying to
steal the funds away from States that have the need and already have
the population to serve.
It is less than amusing for me to hear people who oppose adequate
funding for this program suddenly act like this is the primary concern
to them, that everybody else who doesn't agree with them is cowardly.
And these four Senators they keep identifying--I am one of the four,
proud to be one of those four. If there is a newly emerging problem in
rural areas, then there is one answer--add money, add funding. But
instead of funding AIDS treatment, the Senators on the other side of
the aisle who are not here to defend the tax giveaways or the cost of
the war--they voted to give away AIDS funding money to wealthy
Americans, the wealthiest among us, in massive tax cuts. That's OK.
Give that money to the rich so these poor little things, shivering in
their cribs, can just do with a little bit less than they have. How
about, instead of the estate tax cut for Paris Hilton--substantial
funds--I ask my colleagues, why don't they come out here, protest that,
and say let's give that money to help people with AIDS?
The majority has allowed President Bush to turn Iraq into such a mess
that we are spending over $2 billion a week. Our whole program is $2
billion a year. So why don't we cut back for a couple of weeks, give it
to support treatment for HIV/AIDS. What if we could take just 1 week's
worth of spending in Iraq for AIDS treatment?
We still have a massive problem in our States, and maybe they have an
emerging problem. My suggestion, with all my heart, fund it. Find the
money for it. But don't take it away from a neighbor or another State
where the problems are overwhelming as well.
In my home State of New Jersey, we have the highest proportion of
cumulative AIDS cases in women. We rank third in cumulative pediatric
AIDS cases. Furthermore, we have consistently ranked fifth in overall
cumulative AIDS cases since the beginning of this epidemic.
Yet under the reauthorization proposal, we stand to lose $70 million.
It is unacceptable. It is not acceptable for us to simply say this is a
formula fight and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers because
the losers in this case pay a terrible price.
With the Ryan White CARE Act, when we talk about losers we are
talking about lives being lost. I for one will not settle for such an
outcome. I object to this process and to this bill because it is a
shortsighted approach to how we take care of HIV and AIDS patients in
the future.
This bill will take hope away from people living with HIV/AIDS to
urban areas in large States. I will not let it happen on my watch, no
matter how challenging or how vitriolic the suggestions are made
talking as if we are afraid to come out. We are not afraid at all to
defend our position. We just think theirs is wrong.
Come out and tell the truth about how you feel about it and say,
let's find more money. Let's have a debate about higher funding for the
Ryan White CARE Act and see if we can get the necessary means to cover
our needs.
I don't think you are going to hear that from the Senators who were
so bold in their accusations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank you. I will continue to object
to going forward with this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, would you signal to me when I have used
15 minutes of my 20 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
____________________