[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10606-S10608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION REFORM
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, before the unanimous consent request from
my colleagues, I was talking about
[[Page S10607]]
what we had done together in the bipartisan spirit of moving forward
with a comprehensive immigration reform package that the President had
requested us to work on together and on which there was a great deal of
leadership on the part of the Members in this Chamber to accomplish a
task which the Nation needed.
That was a piece of legislation which was the law and order bill. It
dealt with border security. It dealt with the enforcement of our
immigration laws. It dealt with the system of penalties and
registration that would have brought the 12 million people who now live
within the shadows of America out of the shadows. It is an important
piece of legislation.
Yes, there was disagreement in the Senate as we debated that bill for
almost a month. At the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans came
together to pass a comprehensive immigration reform.
I will quickly review a few of the components of that bill. First,
with respect to border security, we said we would add 12,000 new Border
Patrol agents. We would create additional border fences. We would
provide new criminal penalties for the construction of border tunnels,
the legislation pushed by my colleague, Senator Feinstein from
California. We would add new checkpoints and points of entry so we
could control our borders. And we would expand the exit-entry security
systems at all land borders and airports.
We took some significant steps forward in the legislation, including
a 370-mile fence, which was an amendment. We took significant steps
forward on legislation that was tough on border security. It included
legislation that was an amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama
which would have constructed a 370-mile fence. That was a comprehensive
piece of legislation.
In addition, we said we would be a nation of laws and we would
enforce our laws. We did that with a number of different provisions
which included an additional 5,000 new investigators. It included 20
new detention facilities. It included provisions to reimburse the
States their costs for detaining and imprisoning criminal aliens. The
list goes on. It was a tough bill that said, we are going to enforce
the immigration laws of our country.
We did not stop there because we have the reality of an elephant in
this room, in this country: the 12 million people who live here. Under
the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy, we came up with a
program that would have brought these 12 million people out of the
shadows through a system of penalties and registrations that would have
applied to them. We would have required they pay a fine of $1,000
initially. It would require they register with the U.S. Government,
that they pay an additional $1,000 fee. They go to the end of the line,
the back of the line, they learn English, and a whole host of other
steps.
Our bill was a comprehensive bill. One of the finest moments of this
Senate was that there were a number of Republicans and Democrats who
came together to pass that legislation.
Tonight, unfortunately, we are in a position where the politics of
the day and the politics of the Senate have triumphed over the national
security interests which we addressed in this legislation.
The values that drove at least my participation in that debate, along
with my colleagues including Senator Martinez from Florida, were simple
values. They were the values that said we are a nation of laws. That
means we have to have a law that is going to work, that is going to
secure our borders, that is going to get rid of the lawlessness we
currently face.
The other value that drove me is something which Senator McCain, my
friend from Arizona, often talked about when he talked about the
hundreds of people who are dying in the deserts of his particular
State. To me, those values are values that we should keep at the
forefront, the value of us being a nation of laws and also the moral
values we have to the rest of humanity.
I do not believe that this political gimmick of a fence that is
arbitrarily dictated by Washington to Arizona, California, and Texas is
the right way to go. I don't need to go very far to find people would
have agreed with me. The Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection
under this administration says it doesn't make sense. It is not
practical. That was on June 20 of this year. The Attorney General of
the United States, Gonzales, said, ``I think that's contrary to our
traditions.'' Secretary Chertoff said that, in fact, building a fence
in the desert might be problematic and unrealistic.
There are a number of people in the Bush administration who raised an
objection to this particular proposal that we are considering tonight.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SALAZAR. May I keep going for a couple of minutes and I will be
happy to yield for a question from my friend from Illinois.
I say to my friends who are listening tonight, I do have some
personal history on this issue because my family came here in 1598,
long before Jamestown, some 12 generations ago. We have been around a
long time.
My own history is one where I know I am the first Mexican American to
serve in this Senate in 30 years--the first Mexican American in 30
years and the only one, ever, elected to the Senate outside of the
State of New Mexico.
When I look at this issue of the border, I approach it from the point
of view that we as a nation have a sovereign responsibility to protect
our borders. We have a responsibility to make sure we have a systematic
law in place that deals with the immigration issues of our country. But
I also believe, just as Ronald Reagan asked Mr. Gorbachev to take the
wall down between East Germany and West Germany in order to end the
cold war, there will come a time when, hopefully, this Senate is part
of taking down this wall between Mexico and the United States.
Before I conclude, I yield to my friend from Illinois for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Colorado. I thank him for his
leadership on comprehensive immigration reform which includes real
border enforcement, workplace enforcement, dealing with the needs in
our country for immigration--legitimate legal immigration--and also
dealing with those who are here who should be given a chance to earn
their way toward legal status.
I also agree with my colleague from Colorado about this notion of a
700-mile fence. No matter where I go in the State of Illinois, I ask
people, Do you see the weakness in the logic and the weakness in the
argument of a 700-mile fence on a 2,000-mile border? It is obvious. It
is pretty clear to me that this political bidding war on a border fence
has more to do with the security of those who are up for reelection in
just a few weeks than the security of America.
You do not have to be a law enforcement expert or an engineering
expert to know that this fence, as it has been defined in this bill, is
so expensive--$6 billion--and that we are now passing a homeland
security bill that has $1.2 billion, not nearly enough to even start
and build half of this fence.
So the realistic thing to do, as the Senator from Colorado and I have
tried to do, is to work for sensible fences, sensible barriers, the
best technology, the best security personnel, work for those processes
and technologies that will truly make sure the illegal immigrants stop
coming across our border.
I thank the Senator from Colorado for his leadership.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the leader and great Senator from
Illinois for his leadership in putting together the comprehensive
immigration reform package.
Parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Fifty-four seconds.
Mr. SALAZAR. Fifty-four seconds. Let me just conclude. Mr. President,
I hope as we move forward as a Senate we can find the courage in this
body tonight to turn down this political gimmick; that in this body
there are statesmen and people of principle who believe we ought to put
our national security interests ahead of politics; that there are
people in this body who believe we ought to address the economic
realities of America's farmers and ranchers and construction workers,
construction companies, and others; that there are people in this body
who can look at the future of the Western Hemisphere, including our
relationship with Latin America, and
[[Page S10608]]
recognize that at the end of the day the fence that is being proposed
today is going to be inimical to the long-term interests of the United
States of America as we unite as a global community to deal with the
issues of terrorism around the world; that this fence is going to be
something that is going to hurt us in building those alliances.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this fence bill.
And I urge we do it in a bipartisan way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Under the previous order, there is now time for a speaker from the
majority side until 9:10.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield back the 10 minutes to the
majority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back 10 minutes to the
majority, the majority's time until 9:10.
The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have 3 minutes, and for the benefit of
everyone here, I might as well use it now. There is nobody else to
speak, is there?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sees no one else. The Senator from
Illinois appears to be trying to do that.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly, if I might.
Mr. REID. I have time under the order. Please go ahead.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. I ask
unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business to speak for
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
____________________