[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18926-18950]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              SECURE FENCE ACT OF 2006--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 6061, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to H.R. 6061, an act to establish 
     operational control over the international land and maritime 
     borders of the United States.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2006

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to speak briefly about the 
legislation I introduced earlier this month, the Emergency Farm Relief 
Act of 2006. This bipartisan legislation now has 22 cosponsors in the 
Senate. As I have indicated, it is fully bipartisan. We have a strong 
representation from both parties in the cosponsorship of the

[[Page 18927]]

legislation. It is designed to provide much needed relief to producers 
who have suffered from natural disasters in 2005 and 2006.
  Let me direct the attention of my colleagues to the headlines from 
across my State last year. These headlines talk of massive flooding. In 
fact, last year in North Dakota, over 1 million acres could not be 
planted at all. Hundreds of thousands of additional acres were planted 
and then drowned out.
  ``Heavy Rain Leads to Crop Diseases.''
  ``Crops, Hay, Lost to Flooding.''
  ``Area Farmers Battle Flooding, Disease.''
  ``Rain Halts Harvest.''
  ``ND Anthrax Outbreak Grows.''
  These were the headlines all across my State.
  ``ND Receives Major Disaster Declaration.''
  While we recognize that in 2005 the worst disasters were in the 
gulf--Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina--there was another part of 
the country hit by disaster, little noticed, and that is my part of the 
country.
  Last year, every county was declared a disaster by the Secretary of 
Agriculture. This is what we saw last year: massive flooding all across 
North Dakota, especially eastern North Dakota. In fact, at one point I 
went up in a plane and flew over southeastern North Dakota, and from 
horizon to horizon, all I saw was water. It was extraordinary, the 
worst cross-land flooding we have suffered perhaps in our history. It 
got virtually no attention except by those who experienced it. As I 
indicated, there were a million acres that were prevented from even 
being planted. They couldn't plant. They couldn't get in the field even 
to plant. We suffered an extraordinarily serious disaster last year.
  Now, irony of ironies, this year we are suffering from drought. The 
scientists tell us this is the third worst drought in our Nation's 
history. This drought extends right now through the center of the 
country.
  This is from what is called the U.S. Drought Monitor. It is a 
scientific evaluation of drought conditions in the country. It goes 
from abnormally dry to exceptional drought. The dark brown is 
exceptional drought. That is the most severe category. You can see the 
epicenter of this drought is right in North Dakota and South Dakota. 
Now the entire State of North Dakota is considered in drought 
condition. In our State, it goes from severe to exceptional drought. We 
don't have just abnormally dry or moderate; we are severe to 
exceptional drought in every part of our State.
  This is the headline from the Grand Forks Herald in July of this 
year:
  ``Dakotas Epicenter of Drought-Stricken Nation.''
  Experts say the dry spell is the third worst on record. In our entire 
history, this is the third worst drought, only eclipsed by the 1930s 
and an earlier period.
  In July, Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy and I, our Governor, and 
the agriculture commissioner of North Dakota went on a drought tour. 
This is what we found. This is a pasture in Grant County. It is 
virtually worthless for grazing. I could show picture after picture of 
what we saw.
  One of the most amazing things we found was a corn crop that was 
irrigated--irrigated corn, and the kernels had not formed. Why? Because 
not only have we had drought but we have had extreme heat. These are 
the temperatures for the month of July in North Dakota. All of those in 
orange are over 90 degrees, many of them over 100 degrees. You can see 
in the second week of July: 96, 101, 105, 94, 101, 105. But the real 
tale is told on July 30, when in my hometown it reached 112 degrees. 
That is why even irrigated corn did not produce.
  Here is a picture from a Burleigh County cornfield. This is corn in 
the southern part of Burleigh County, which is my home county. You can 
see there is virtually nothing growing. It is like a moonscape. These 
are the conditions we faced all across North Dakota.
  It is true that there are some places that had good crops, if you 
just had the right mix of weather conditions, even though there was 
drought. Perhaps they had irrigation or for some other reason they had 
a good crop, but much of North Dakota has been devastated. I am told by 
the bankers of our State that if we do not get help, 5 percent to 10 
percent of the producers in North Dakota will be forced off the land. 
That is how severe this crisis has become.
  During the August recess, I organized a drought rally in Bismarck, 
ND. Hundreds of farmers and ranchers came from all across the State. 
Our Governor attended, as did Senator Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy 
and our agricultural commissioner. The message was loud and clear: If 
there is not assistance that is meaningful, if it does not come soon, 
thousands of farm families are going to lose their livelihood. That is 
the reality of what we confront.
  In late August, the Secretary of Agriculture traveled to South 
Dakota. He proposed there a program that is totally and completely 
inadequate. The program he proposed is mostly money that is already in 
the budget. It is not new money, just a shuffling of the deck.
  On September 12, the Secretary notified me that all North Dakota 
counties had been designated as primary disaster counties for the 2006 
crop year. Why aren't we satisfied? Because all that makes available 
are low-interest loans. This crisis is so severe that more loans are 
just going to drive people deeper into debt and are going to further 
pressure them off the land.
  On September 12, when the Secretary notified me that all North Dakota 
counties had been designated as disaster counties, it was also the day 
I was joined by hundreds of farmers from across the country, dozens of 
Senators--colleagues from the House and Senate--at a press conference 
only a few yards from here. Thirty-four national farm organizations 
have announced that they are asking Congress to provide this disaster 
relief which is contained in my legislation; 34 national organizations 
have united behind my legislation.
  So the question before the Congress of the United States is, Will we 
act and will we act in time? I pray that this Congress will act, and I 
pray we will act in time. If we fail, thousands of farm families will 
be forced off the land and will lose their livelihoods. That is the 
reality we confront. That is why Senator Nelson and I have come to the 
floor today. All I can do is ask colleagues to remember that when the 
Gulf States suffered horrendous disasters in Hurricane Karina and 
Hurricane Rita, all of us came to help. We are asking for that same 
consideration now, as the center of the country suffers from truly a 
devastating drought.
  I will yield the floor, but before I do so, if I could just say to my 
colleague, Senator Nelson, I thank him for his leadership, as he has 
repeatedly pressed for this assistance to pass. I think we should say 
for the record that this assistance has passed in the Senate twice 
already, by overwhelming margins. In fact, there was an attempt to take 
it out of one of the supplemental appropriations bills and 72 Senators 
voted for it. Seventy-two Senators voted to keep it in. So there is 
strong bipartisan support in the Senate.
  Our problem has been that the President has issued a veto threat, and 
the House of Representatives so far has upheld that veto threat by 
refusing to consider the Senate legislation. We believe we should give 
them one more chance because now this drought disaster has deepened and 
been joined by, of course, the effects of Hurricane Ernesto, which did 
enormous damage in North Carolina and Virginia, right up to Maryland.
  Now is the time. People need help. They deserve it. This disaster 
assistance will only give help if people have suffered a loss of at 
least 35 percent. This doesn't make them whole. They would still suffer 
enormous losses. But at least it would give them a fair, fighting 
chance.
  I want to repeat, you only get help under this legislation if you 
have suffered a loss of at least 35 percent. It is not too much to ask 
that we provide this kind of assistance to those who have suffered 
natural disaster. This is not regional legislation, it is national 
legislation. Anyone, anywhere, who has suffered a loss of at least 35 
percent would be eligible for some assistance.

[[Page 18928]]

  Again I acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from Nebraska who 
has been so persistent and so determined to get help to our producers.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as if in morning business about S. 385, the Emergency Farm Relief 
Act of 2006.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I thank my colleague from 
North Dakota for his support and for his continuing interest and 
efforts to bring this to a conclusion.
  I came to the floor last week as well in an attempt to provide much 
needed emergency relief to our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural 
small businesses that have been devastated by the long running drought 
that I have nicknamed Drought David. Some have asked why did I give it 
a name. A drought, unlike a hurricane or a flood, is a slow-moving 
disaster that can linger over the course of years. In some places, 
Drought David is celebrating its fifth birthday, and in other places it 
is celebrating its seventh birthday. But by giving it some identity, we 
hope we can give it the same kind of identity that is very often given 
to a hurricane which is named. It is not just a storm--it is Hurricane 
Ernesto or Katrina. I felt that giving this continuing drought a name 
would help give an identity so people could focus on this being a 
natural disaster, a devastation of major economic proportions to large 
areas within our country that can have the same impact in terms of 
economic loss which very often a hurricane will cause in its wake.
  At this time, I ask a simple question of the Senate: If not now, 
when? When will this Senate provide the relief needed by our Nation's 
farmers and ranchers? Unfortunately, my question was answered last week 
by the procedural tactics to block an up-or-down vote.
  So, today, I have two questions to ask my colleagues: If not now, 
when? And, most importantly, if not now, why? Why do we refuse to 
provide relief to farmers and ranchers suffering from this particular 
natural disaster when we provide relief, as we should, to others for 
natural disasters like hurricanes? Is relief from the Senate seriously 
based solely upon the sensational nature of the disaster and the news 
reports of the disaster? If a Drought David were able to grab the 
headlines like a hurricane, would relief be constantly and consistently 
blocked?
  That is not acceptable to the farmers and ranchers I know, and it is 
not acceptable to me--and I am sure it is not acceptable to a majority 
of my colleagues in the Senate.
  As Senator Conrad has pointed out, at least on two occasions, we have 
already voted to provide this kind of relief, and now procedurally it 
is being blocked.
  Last week, I told the Senate about the damage this drought has caused 
to farmers and ranchers in Nebraska. As my colleague has indicated, in 
the State of North Dakota, the damage is considerable.
  I told the Senate last week about how the drought has caused $342 
million in damage so far this year for Nebraska alone.
  Keep in mind this is in many cases 5 or 7 years old. The multiples 
are pretty clearly tremendously important to the State of Nebraska. 
Still the Senate has refused to act.
  Last week, I talked about how the drought forced farmers in Nebraska 
to spend an extra $51 million just for irrigation costs during this 
summer. Still, the Senate refused to act.
  Last week, I talked about how just this year the drought has cost 
Nebraska farmers $98 million in crop losses and $193 million in 
livestock production losses. And still, the Senate refused to act.
  Senator Conrad and I and many of our colleagues have put together a 
comprehensive package to provide emergency funding to farmers and 
ranchers who suffered weather-related production shortfalls, quality 
losses, and damage to livestock and feed supplies. Our bill also helps 
farmers overcome the losses they suffered because of energy price 
spikes after the hurricane last year.
  I warn my colleagues again that the devastating impacts of the 
drought threaten to drive many of our farmers and ranchers out of 
business. We no longer can expect family farmers to make a go of it day 
in and day out with these ongoing losses. People have said that maybe 
the Crop Insurance Program would be able to provide the kind of 
assistance that is required. No crop insurance program can ever provide 
year in and year out for a 5-year or a 7-year period of losses. It is 
not designed to do that, and it is not priced to do that. It is not 
equipped to do that, and actuarially it simply won't work. It would be 
the equivalent of insuring your house, and every year for 5 years the 
house burned. You rebuild it, it burns; you rebuild it, it burns. No 
insurance program is designed nor will it function to take care of that 
kind of loss.
  Without our farmers and ranchers, we cannot expect to continue to 
secure our national food supply. And without our farmers and ranchers, 
we cannot hope to grow our domestic production of alternative renewable 
fuels.
  Again I ask, if not now, when? If we fail to act and by our inaction 
we allow farmers and ranchers and rural businesses to dry up under the 
devastating impact of the drought, then we have failed not only those 
farmers and ranchers and small businesses, but we have also failed our 
Nation because we will have failed to ensure our food and fuel 
security.
  This is why I ask my second question: If not now, why? I think our 
farmers and ranchers deserve more than procedural gimmicks. They at 
least deserve answers from this body about why they will not get the 
relief they so desperately need.
  I have spoken to my friend and colleague, Senator Harry Reid, and he 
has informed me that no one on the Democratic side of the Senate is 
going to block or will block an up-or-down vote on this relief.
  I hope today as we ask this question for the consideration of this 
body we will make a bipartisan effort to bring about relief to these 
parts of the country that are undergoing such devastating losses.
  I ask again, if not now, why? Surely the Senate can spare an hour of 
its day to consider this issue and certainly to vote for farmers and 
ranchers and rural businesses that help this Nation and the world and 
of whom we are asking to provide more and more of our Nation's fuel 
supply as well. Surely, we can find some time to vote for providing 
them the relief they need. I think they deserve at least that much.
  That is why I am prepared to continue to fight for this relief and 
continue to work to get relief out to our farmers.
  I know my colleague and others are also joining in that. One way or 
the other, I will work to get this done. If nothing else, I am going to 
continue to fight to get this emergency relief included in any 
continuing resolution that Congress will have to pass before it leaves 
in a week.
  I ask my colleague from North Dakota if he needs to have any more 
time yielded to him.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3855

  If not, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 3855, the emergency drought 
assistance bill, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate 
consideration, the bill be read a third time, and without further 
intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to vote on passage of 
this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On behalf of the Senator from Alaska, I will 
object. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I know that the occupant of the Chair is 
acting as a representative of her party, whatever her particular 
position might be. I want to lay it out on the record because I know 
the Chair can't explain her own position. She is precluded by the rules 
from doing that. We don't hold the Chair personally responsible in any 
way for this objection. We understand that she is required to do so. 
Any occupant of the chair would be so required. It is probably 
important to put that on the record.

[[Page 18929]]

  Madam President, we deeply regret that there has been objection 
raised. We deeply regret that we are not given the chance to pass 
legislation which has already passed this body twice before but that 
has been blocked because the President has threatened a veto and the 
House has so far gone along with his threat.
  Again, the Senate has acted twice in overwhelming numbers to pass 
drought relief. Goodness knows it is needed.
  I was home just this last weekend. I was all across the northern tier 
of North Dakota. In every location, farmers came to me, ranchers came 
to me, and said: Kent, is there not an understanding in Washington what 
is happening here? Does no one care? If there is no response and if it 
does not come soon, thousands of us are going to be gone.
  One of the most prominent bankers in my State, I say to my colleague 
from Nebraska, came to me this weekend and said: Kent, if there is not 
disaster relief, 10 percent of the farmers in my portfolio are going to 
be out of business. They will not get financing. They will not even get 
financing to go into the fields next year.
  One of the farmers said to me: It has been 5 years since I had a 
normal crop.
  Between this extraordinary flooding, these extraordinary droughts--
and I don't pretend to know whether global warming or global climate 
change is part of this. What I do know is something is happening that 
is absolutely extraordinary in our part of the country. We have gone 
from massive flooding to massive drought this year. Flooding and 
drought of that proportion has never been seen before in my State--or 
at least rarely seen. On the drought monitor, they say this is the 
third worst drought in our Nation's history.
  We need to act. We are not asking to make people whole. They will not 
be made whole by our disaster relief bill. They only get help if they 
have at least a 35-percent loss. Then the help only comes to the losses 
over that amount.
  We are not asking to make people whole. We are not asking that people 
have some big windfall. We are asking that people be given a fair 
fighting chance.
  That has been denied today. But today is not the end of the story. We 
are going to come back. Again, we want to acknowledge this body has 
twice overwhelmingly passed disaster assistance. We appreciate that. 
Our problem is not in this body. Very frankly, our problem is in the 
other body and at the White House. That is where our problem lies.
  I again want to thank very much my colleague from Nebraska for his 
steadfast leadership on this issue. That is so important to the people 
we represent.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, let me also acknowledge that 
the objection entered was not a personal objection by the Senator from 
Alaska but one procedurally required of her in her capacity.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 20 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madam President.


                          Energy Independence

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about an 
equally important issue to many of our States and follow up on the 
earlier comment by my colleague from Idaho on energy independence for 
the Nation, and the importance of that at this particular time to the 
Gulf of Mexico, America's only energy coast and an area that I need not 
have to explain again is in one of the most challenging situations of 
its entire history.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senators from 
Nebraska and North Dakota regarding the drought.
  We have had similar droughts, amazingly, in our State, even with the 
hurricanes. But as Senators who represent farm State communities, 
agriculture is very important to the State of Louisiana. We have been 
in a situation that they have been in. I know people think of us as a 
State with a lot of rain, and obviously a target for hurricanes, but we 
have also been stricken by serious drought.
  The point of my comment about what was said is this: Sometimes things 
happen out of the ordinary, extraordinary situations, as they have just 
described, which deserve an unprecedented and extraordinary response.
  I know we in Washington deal with that very well because we like 
everything that is sort of in the box, but we also don't like 
everything to kind of be one way. The fact is, when serious, 
extraordinary circumstances happen, we need to make a quick and 
appropriate response. It is most certainly appropriate for these 
Senators to come to the Senate and ask for a quick and immediate 
response to part of our Nation. This drought is not just, of course, in 
Nebraska and North Dakota. The pictures have shown pockets of severe 
and unprecedented drought, and whether it is because of global warming 
or whether it is just because of the severe weather patterns caused by 
something else, we can debate that until the cows come home. The fact 
is we have farming communities, rural communities, suffering right now. 
They need our best effort. I support seeing what we can do to help.


                   Natural Gas in the Gulf of Mexico

  I will speak this morning for a few moments about an issue which is 
almost equal to the concern of farmers in America; that is, the price 
of natural gas. Farmers, like many industry groups, use natural gas. In 
their case, fertilizers are produced using a lot of natural gas, and 
fertilizers go into the farmers' fields.
  Natural gas is also used as a raw material to create virtually 50 
percent of the products created in American gas. And we have a great 
shortage. It is driving the price high, historically high--not the 
highest it has ever been but historically high prices.
  The only way we can get the price of gas down--and we need to; that 
is what the Senator from Idaho spoke about, energy independence and 
stabilizing prices--is to increase the supply and to make the supply 
sources more diverse so industries, if the price of gas is high, can 
use coal, or if the price of coal is high, they can use oil, or if the 
price of oil is high, they can use alternative fuels or ethanol.
  We have been in a mad dash against time to expand our source of fuels 
and to increase the supply, where we can, in the most environmentally 
sensitive way possible. It has been a debate which has gone on for 
decades. It will continue to go on for decades because some States 
produce gas, some produce oil, some produce coal, and some do not 
produce any of that and have nuclear powerplants and think that is the 
way to go. Some of us have more wind than others, some of us have more 
sun than others.
  This is a debate which is natural in a democracy. Just because it is 
difficult does not mean we have to stop trying. We have to press 
forward on the issue of a greater supply and greater independence for 
America. We are dangerously dependent on foreign sources of oil and 
gas.
  Madam President, 72 Senators--unprecedented in this day of 
partisanship, in this day of not even being able to agree on the time 
of day or the weather conditions outside--72 Senators came together 
under the leadership of Senator Domenici, the chairman of our Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee. The Presiding Officer serves on that 
committee and has been a wonderful voice of reason for the Senate. We 
passed a bill to open more supplies of gas in the Gulf of Mexico.
  The Senator from Idaho showed a much larger and more colorful chart. 
I thought his looked terrific, and I will ask to borrow it one day, but 
I do not have it at this moment and this chart will suffice. It shows 
areas that are basically off of production. The white areas off the 
Atlantic coast, the coast of California, and around Florida have not 
been open to production for the last 35 years. There are many reasons--
some of them good and some of them not good--we can't drill in these 
areas.
  We will continue to debate for decades to come what to do off the 
shores

[[Page 18930]]

of Washington, Oregon, California, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, 
North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. That debate will go on for the next many 
years. I will be on one side of that debate, and my colleagues will be 
on the other. I believe you can access resources appropriately. 
However, we are not going to resolve that issue in the next week. We 
are not going to resolve that issue in the next month. I predict we 
will not resolve that issue for the next year. However, we have farmers 
in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and 
Kansas who are desperate for gas now. They cannot wait 10 years or 
three decades until we figure out the politics of drilling on the 
Atlantic and Pacific coast. They need help now.
  For Congress to be able to help them and not help them is a crime. 
For Congress to be able to help them and not help them is a crime, it 
is a shame. It should not stand.
  We have the political support and the votes now--among Democrats and 
Republicans in the House and the Senate, today--to open more drilling 
in the Gulf of Mexico. We have not been able to open sections in the 
gulf because of disagreements between Florida and Alabama for decades. 
Because of the good work of the Senators from Alabama, Mr. Shelby and 
Mr. Sessions, and the good Senators from Florida, Mr. Martinez and Mr. 
Nelson--they worked for months in the most difficult of political 
situations to come up with a way to open more oil and gas drilling in 
the Gulf of Mexico, a place that everyone agrees has tremendous 
reserves, that everyone agrees is where we should drill. There are no 
fights among Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Now Alabama 
and Florida have come to agreements. Their Governors have agreed. Their 
general political establishments have agreed--not unanimously but the 
vast majority.
  We are here, a week until we leave, and we are going to do nothing--
that is what some people say--because it is not good enough. I don't 
know what school of politics or leadership they came from. All I know, 
as a leader, you take things a step at a time. You cannot change the 
world in 1 day. You have to change it a little bit at a time. It takes 
time to educate people and to talk to them about the benefits. I have 
taken as many Senators as will go with me out on the rigs. I took the 
Secretary of the Interior out there to show him. It takes a while to 
take a lot of people out there. They are busy. They have other things 
on their minds. We are doing the best we can to try to educate people 
all over the country about the benefits.
  We started drilling offshore in the 1940s. The first well was a 
little town in southwest Louisiana called Creole. It was just basically 
washed away in the hurricane. The brave little town, Creole, LA, put 
the first well offshore about four decades ago. The industry has 
blossomed since then.
  The purple spots on this chart represent pipelines of natural gas. 
But the purple spots represent more than pipelines; they represent 
jobs, economic hope, and economic strength of the greatest Nation on 
Earth. Without these pipelines, without this gas, we cannot produce 
hardly anything in the United States of America--from plastics, to 
manufacturing, to steel, to electricity. We keep the lights on in North 
America. We are proud of it. We want to do more of it. We can do more 
of it.
  We have a bill and the political leadership to open the gulf, but 
some people around the Capitol do not want to do that until we figure 
out the politics of drilling off the coast of California--I suggest 
that is going to take a little more than a few weeks--or until we 
figure out the politics of drilling off the Atlantic coast. I suggest 
that is going to take a little bit more work. I am willing to do the 
work. I have done a lot of the work for the last 10 years. I am 
continuing to do the work. It is not going to happen in the next month.
  Meanwhile, our manufacturing cannot stay competitive with China. With 
cheap oil and cheap gas coming in from other parts of the world, they 
are laying off workers, unable to make long-term capital decisions 
because this Congress can't figure out, this leadership can't figure 
out how to get a bill passed that opens gas and oil in the Gulf of 
Mexico. It would not be opened without a bill. It can't open without a 
bill.
  Maybe in the ``plan''--lots of things are in a plan. I have plans for 
my house, to decorate. That is not to say it is going to get done 
because there is someone else in my house--my husband--who has ideas of 
his own about how this works. Just because you have something in a 
``plan'' doesn't mean it is going to happen. Just because MMS has these 
things in their plan does not mean it will happen, but it could happen 
with a bill that we could pass. If our bill is law, obviously it will 
make it happen.
  I will show the picture of the gulf here. This is what the Gulf of 
Mexico looks like. These are active wells. The bigger picture was white 
spaces with no one else drilling. These are all the drills, the yellow 
are the leases, and these are the active wells. We are producing 30 
percent of the Nation's needs from here. We are proud to do it. We will 
keep doing it.
  There is still a lot of white space we could open. That is what we 
are trying to do--open a little off the Alabama shore, give Florida the 
buffer they have asked for. Some people do not agree with that, but we 
had to come to terms with the situation in Florida. Their State is 
divided on this issue. Some people in Florida want to drill, some 
people don't want to drill. This was a compromise, as is everything 
here, and we figured out a way to give Florida a buffer, open up some 
more oil and gas drilling.
  The next chart shows the area we came up with after a lot of work. 
This lease sale that we could open opens up 9 million new acres of oil 
and gas. This will not solve my colleagues' problem, Senators Kent 
Conrad and Ben Nelson, it will not solve their drought problem, but it 
will give relief to farmers everywhere when the gas prices come down 
and the oil and gas starts coming on line.
  To put the 9 million acres in perspective--and the Presiding Officer 
will know this better than anyone--we have fought for 40 years over 
whether to open ANWR, and ANWR is 6,000 acres. And our debate for 40 
years has been about whether to open 2,000 acres.
  Our bill--and we have 72 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, led by 
Senator Domenici--will open 9 million acres. But some people around the 
Capitol don't think that is a significant step. They do not think that 
9 million acres makes a difference. They just think this is nothing and 
we should keep working until we can get everything opened, and they are 
sure that will happen next year.
  I will share the national membership list of the Consumer Alliance 
for Energy Security. There are probably 100 or more organizations, led 
by corporations, nonprofit organizations, agriculture, chemical, 
consumers, manufacturers--the list goes on. It is a very broad-based 
list. It is not just an industry list; it is retailers, et cetera--the 
national Chambers of Commerce, the Forestry Association, environmental 
organizations that understand this country is at great risk unless we 
open access, that understand we need to do it a step at a time. We are 
making progress, but we have to take this a step at a time. We want to 
take this step now.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record to 
indicate that this group is on the record wanting greater access on the 
issues I am speaking about.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Consumer Alliance for Energy Security


                        national membership list

       Albemarle Corporation; Adhesive and Sealant Council, Inc.; 
     Advanced Service Corporation; Agriculture Energy Alliance; 
     Agriculture Retailers Association; Air Liquide; Air Products; 
     Aluminum Association; American Forest & Paper Association; 
     American Gas Association; American Fiber Manufacturers 
     Association; American Iron and Steel Institute; American 
     Public Gas Association; Arizona Chamber of Commerce; Arkema 
     Inc.;

[[Page 18931]]

     Ashland Inc.; Associated Oregon Industries; Associated Oregon 
     Loggers; Bayer Corporation; Bowater.
       Carousal Promotional; CF Industries; Chemtura Corporation; 
     China Mist Tea; Ciba Specialty Chemicals; Citation Homes; 
     Colorado Agri-Business Association; Colorado Association of 
     Wheat Growers; Colorado Farm Bureau; Concerned Pastors, 
     Church of God in Christ; CoTransCo; David J. Cole & 
     Associates; DeGreen Wealth Management Corporation; Dow 
     Corning Corporation; DTE Energy; Duane Ankeny, Mining Co.; 
     DuPont; Eastman Chemical; East-Lind Heat Treat, Inc.; Energy 
     Links Incorporated.
       ESAB Welding & Cutting; Executive Energy Services, LLC; 
     Financial Energy Management, Inc.; General Equipment & 
     Supply; Glassman & Associates; Greater Metro Denver 
     Ministerial Alliance; Greenville Free Medical Clinic; 
     Guardian Industries; Harnes Homes; Hawkeye Renewable Corp.; 
     Holmes Murphy Insurance; Industrial Energy Consumers of 
     America; International Paper; International Sleep Products 
     Association; Iowa Farm Bureau; Iowa Health Systems; Iowa 
     Manufactured Housing Association; ITWC, Inc.; J & K Realty; 
     James Insurance Solutions.
       Kirk Engineering and Natural Resources, Inc; Lansing 
     Regional Chamber of Commerce; Latco Development; Latham Hi-
     Tech Hybrids; Living Waters Christian Center; McAninch 
     Corporation; MeadWestvaco Corp; Michigan Agribusiness 
     Association; Michigan Chemistry Council; Michigan Farm 
     Bureau; Michigan Floriculture Growers Council; Michigan 
     Forest Products Council; Michigan Manufacturers Association; 
     Milliken; Montana Chamber of Commerce; National Paint and 
     Coatings Association; Nestle Prepared Foods Company; 
     Northwest Food Processors Association; Northwest Gas 
     Association; Northwest Industrial Gas Users.
       Oregon Association of Nurseries; Oregon Cattlemen's 
     Association; Oregon Dairy Farmers Association; Oregon Farm 
     Bureau; Oregon Forest Industries Council; Oregon Seed 
     Council; Oregon Small Business Coalition; Oregon Wheat 
     Growers League; Oregonians for Food and Shelter; PPG 
     Industries, Inc.; Panel Components Corp.; Pellett Petroleum 
     Co.; Piedmont Natural Gas; Pipkin Mortuary; Praxair, Inc.; 
     Promotional Authority; Printing-Industries of America; Quad 
     County Ethanol; Resource Supply Management; Rhodia.
       Rhom and Haas Company; Rubber Manufacturers Association; SC 
     Chamber of Commerce; SC Forestry Association; Simkins 
     Company; Skogman Realty; South Carolina Farm Bureau 
     Federation; South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance; Southwest 
     Gas Corporation; Springs Global; Steele Financial Services; 
     Sully Cooperative Exchange; Terra Industries; The Carpet and 
     Rug Institute; The Dow Chemical Company; The ESCO Group; The 
     Soap and Detergent Association; The Society of the Plastics 
     Industry, Inc.; The Timken Company; Thombert, Inc; U.S. 
     Steel; Van Diest Supply Company; West Central Cooperative.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. But I want to go back to this 9 million acres. This 
will not open without our bill. It may be in the plan, but it is under 
moratoria. This section is under moratoria. It cannot be lifted with a 
magic wand. The only way it can be lifted is if we pass a bill to lift 
it. If we do not pass a bill, it will stay closed, and the oil and gas 
companies that have pipelines in the gulf, that have the infrastructure 
in the gulf, that have the expertise in the gulf will not be allowed to 
drill there. Meanwhile, prices go high, we lose manufacturing, 
everybody loses jobs in their States, and we wring our hands here 
saying we cannot do anything.
  Well, we can do something. Chevron did something pretty big last week 
or 2 weeks ago. Chevron and some of its partners discovered a major oil 
and gas find, as shown here on the map. Look how small this is. It is 
just one of these little dots, just one of them. It is so tiny on the 
map, but it is so huge. This one discovery of Chevron called the Jack 
Rig--the Jack find--and several right here in the deep water of the 
Gulf of Mexico will double the reserves of the country's oil.
  It is a significant find. It is as significant as finds in Saudi 
Arabia. It is surprising, in some sense, to some people who thought we 
drilled everything we could in America. But the fact is, Americans are 
a pretty smart group of people. And our partners around the world, with 
whom we make partnerships, can usually figure things out pretty well. 
With the right incentives and the right ingenuity and with necessity, 
we can find oil and gas in places we never thought we could.
  This well is 28,000 feet deep. They found oil and gas here that is 
going to be a great help in the event we continue to have problems in 
the Mideast, if we continue to have problems in Venezuela. It does not 
look very promising there to me right now.
  This is one small, little dot. It is probably not more than--I am not 
sure--maybe a couple hundred acres. So when people say to me: Senator, 
your bill or Senator Domenici's bill that opens 9 million acres does 
not do anything--and I look at what the Jack Rig did, which is right 
here--I have to tell them I don't buy their argument, and I don't think 
the American people do.
  Opening more area in the Gulf of Mexico where the infrastructure is, 
where we have proven reserves--and because the information is 
proprietary--and you can understand why it is proprietary because this 
is a competitive business. All we can find out, according to the 
geologists who made this discovery, is that they think they have tapped 
into a ``fairway''--which is the way it was quoted in the newspaper--a 
``fairway'' of oil and gas, ready reserves within our grasp in the area 
that is used for drilling, with people who know how to work on the 
rigs, in a political environment that is safe.
  And we cannot, and will not, before we leave next week, take this 
step because we have to wait to open drilling all over America off the 
coast? I do not think that is a wise decision. I think we should take 
the steps now that we can take, establish revenue sharing, which is 
part of the bill for Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and 
allow these States to be full and equal partners in sharing the 
benefits of these resources because we most certainly share the burdens 
of pipelines, that while we are proud of them, they most certainly have 
an erosion factor.
  Our wetlands are being lost at an alarming rate--I have spoken about 
that many times--not just because of the impacts of oil and gas, which 
are somewhat contributory to this situation, but mostly because this 
mighty Mississippi River, which also serves the Nation's economy in a 
very significant way, has been leveed over the centuries, and it cannot 
overflow like it used to. So the land cannot replenish itself. And so 
it continues to subside. And with global warming, it is now 
exacerbated. But that is not the subject of this talk.
  We will put our money to great use in Louisiana. Every 
environmentalist should be very happy to know that our money is going 
to be used to protect and preserve this great wetlands, which is an 
enormous treasure for the Nation, and one that gives so many benefits, 
and, most importantly, with the recent hurricane, it helps protect 
great cities, and not just Louisiana communities, but it also protects 
Mississippi. We are happy to protect our neighbors when we can.
  This wetlands protects the gulf coast, and we need to get it restored 
for the benefit of both the States of Mississippi and Louisiana. And it 
creates some buffers, obviously, to Alabama, should the storm come this 
way. It will hit us first before hitting Mississippi or Alabama, and 
our wetlands reduce that surge. Having said that, we need to press on 
with a pro-production bill in the Gulf of Mexico, laying the 
foundation, as Senator Domenici has suggested, for revenue sharing.
  Now, I would like to read into the Record statements that have been 
made by Republican Senators, not Democratic Senators, although I do 
have some of those I could read into the Record. But for the purposes 
of this debate, they are statements by Republican Senators who strongly 
support the Senate version, and why they support the Senate version, 
because I want to communicate that some people on the other side or 
some people in the Capitol and other people are saying it is just the 
Democrats who are stopping this broader drilling bill, and if Democrats 
would just get their act together, we could get it done.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. There are some Democrats 
opposed to the broad drilling bill, but there are many Republicans here 
opposed to the broad drilling bill.
  Let me read one of the statements. And I am sure Senator Graham from 
South Carolina would not mind me restating his own speech on the floor 
of the Senate. He said, on August, 2--this is Senator Lindsey Graham, 
Republican from South Carolina:


[[Page 18932]]

       I do support passage of S. 3711, but I do not support the 
     bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this 
     year. The careful compromise that is the Senate bill cannot 
     be found in the version passed by the House. I will not 
     support any legislation that opens South Carolina's coast to 
     drilling for oil. . . . I . . . encourage my colleagues in 
     the House that if they are truly serious [they will live to 
     the framework of the Senate bill].

  Now, he said ``for oil.'' He may be willing to open it for gas. I 
will grant you that. And the House bill allows a choice between oil and 
gas. But, like I said, that debate is complicated. It is multistate. It 
will take much longer than the week we have, much longer probably than 
even next year. And the need is immediate and the need is great.
  I know my colleagues have come to the floor, and I asked for 20 
minutes, so I am going to wrap up my remarks in about 1 minute to give 
others an opportunity to speak.
  Let me quote from Senator Martinez, a Republican Senator from 
Florida:

       I will take a moment to thank [the House] for their 
     diligence and vigilance. [I will thank the House Members for 
     their good work. But at this time] I cannot support the House 
     version. I have had clear assurances from our leaders [here 
     in the Senate] that we are committed to working from the 
     framework of the Senate bill. That has been important to me, 
     and while I respect the hard work of our House colleagues [on 
     this subject]--

  And we have some great leaders in the House, both Republicans and 
Democrats--those are my words. He goes on to say:

     and their autonomy as a body of Congress--

  He says he respects that, but we must prevail in the Senate version.
  Senator Warner said:

       Many of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the 
     Gulf of Mexico bill, and they stem from what is in the House 
     bill. They said they do not want to lift the moratorium as 
     the House bill would do.

  So even Senator Warner, who supports drilling off the coast of 
Virginia and has made his position clear, understands there is still 
work to be done in order for that to happen.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, let's not make the perfect the enemy of 
the good. Let's not tell our agricultural community, our manufacturing 
community, our utilities, our petrochemical industry to wait when we 
have a bill that will open 9 million acres of gas and oil, provide 
great companies such as Chevron and others the opportunity--both big 
oil and independents that create a lot of jobs--to explore more here 
safely off our coast.
  It increases our economic strength. It produces jobs immediately. It 
lowers energy prices for all consumers. And it does make our Nation 
more secure.
  I am going to close with this: I do not know how my colleagues feel 
about being beholden to the politics of the Mideast right now. I do not 
know how my colleagues feel about being beholden to the politics going 
on in Venezuela. I do not feel comfortable with it. I do feel 
comfortable about the politics of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and 
Texas. They are Americans. And we have our deal together. We want to 
drill for all Americans, for the security of our Nation.
  Please, allow us to give this country more oil and gas. Please allow 
us to lower prices. And let's take it a step at a time. I promise my 
colleagues--the Senator from Pennsylvania knows very well the people in 
Pennsylvania need relief. I say to the Senator, they cannot wait 
another year or two. They need it now. He knows that well. He has been 
a strong advocate for his people in Pennsylvania. But we have to open 
this up now. And we will come back and work offshore Alaska, offshore 
maybe some of these other States, when their Governors and when their 
legislators and when their political leadership can get their 
neighborhoods together.
  But the neighborhood of the gulf is together. Our Governors are 
together. Our Senators are together. And our people are together. We 
want to do this for America. Please let's do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                            ENERGY SECURITY

  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I will pick up where the 
Senator from Louisiana just left off, and congratulate her for her 
energetic support for energy security in this country. This is a huge 
issue. It is actually the reason I came to the floor to talk today, to 
talk about energy security. I am going to talk about a comprehensive 
approach I am introducing today, and a big part of that comprehensive 
approach is the passage of the legislation the Senator from Louisiana 
has talked about in addition to additional things she has talked about 
that we would like to do. If we could do them this year, great, let's 
try to do them this year.
  Let's try to do more OCS this year. But let's get done as much as we 
can this year. Let's, if we can, pass the Senate bill. If there are 
additional provisions we can accomplish this year to--the Senator from 
Alaska is here behind me. The Senator from Louisiana mentioned the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. Let's try to get those done. Maybe there are 
some other things we can add, maybe in different pieces of legislation, 
to move this ball forward. There are conference reports that are going 
to be coming out, and it is not unheard of to place a little tidbit or 
two in a conference report. Let's sit down and have serious 
negotiations and discussions with the House to try to get as much as we 
possibly can without walking out of here empty handed.
  So I would very much like to see that done. I congratulate the 
Senator from Louisiana, as well as all of those who have stepped 
forward--the chairman of the Energy Committee, obviously, Senator 
Domenici, and Senator Stevens, who is here on the Senate floor--for all 
of their efforts to try to do something that I think is vitally 
important.
  I think the Senator from Louisiana put it in the right context. The 
context is that we are at war with a group of people we are funding 
because of the high cost of energy. Let's just be very honest about it. 
This is a very serious war we are involved in, and we are directly 
contributing huge amounts of American resources to the people who would 
like to destroy everything we believe. That is a country that is on a 
mission of suicide. We need to have more energy security because that 
leads to better national security.
  (The remarks of Mr. Santorum pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3926 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania 
for his comments and hope more people will listen to him. He is 
certainly on the right track as far as this Senator is concerned.


        Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to remind the 
Senate that the Senate Commerce Committee reported to the Senate a 
bipartisan bill, the Senate communications bill, and it is critical 
that the Senate consider this bill on the floor.
  It is a bill that is good for the consumer. This bill seeks to reduce 
phone rates for our troops overseas. This bill makes available 
immediately $1 billion for our first responders. That is money that has 
been held in the Treasury since last December awaiting authorization 
for this money to be released.
  This money will be used to train, coordinate, and provide 
interoperable equipment to those first responders. This is money they 
absolutely must have.
  This bill creates caches of emergency communications equipment which 
will be located throughout our Nation, equipment that is absolutely 
necessary in the event of an emergency, particularly emergencies caused 
by terrorist activity in the future.
  This bill encourages broadband deployment for consumers. We are 
behind the world in deployment of broadband. This bill reduces consumer 
cable rates, a step that is vital to assure that our people can 
continue to expand the use of cable in terms of communication.
  This bill creates choices for consumers for both video and phone 
service. It is a bill to level the playing field

[[Page 18933]]

between the various providers of communications capability for all 
Americans.
  This bill will broaden the base for universal service. This is a 
concept that makes communications available to rural America which is 
critical, and it is critical to consider a way to make it more 
affordable and to make sure that the contribution required from users 
of our communications system is as small as possible, but at the same 
time meets the needs so that every American can have available 
communications.
  I believe availability of communications is a new right for American 
citizens. Everyone must have the ability to learn of emergencies and 
have the ability to communicate.
  This bill exempts the Universal Service Fund from the Antideficiency 
Act. That will be good for our Nation's schools and libraries that rely 
on universal service funding. It is necessary because of the 
fluctuations in the use of this fund, and it should not be considered 
under the Antideficiency Act.
  This bill permits municipalities to provide broadband service 
throughout America in both urban and rural communities. The so-called 
Wi-Fi concept will be expanded.
  The bill expands access for the blind and hearing impaired to the 
voice over the Internet. VOIP is a brandnew system. It must be 
available to those with disabilities, as well as all other Americans.
  There is wide support for the Senate communications bill. Several 
days ago, a letter that was signed by over 100 companies sent to our 
leaders was made available. These are companies involved in the 
manufacture, design, and construction of telecommunications networks. 
These 100 companies express support for our bill because it encourages 
broadband deployment. They support the bill's lighter regulatory 
approach to the concepts of net neutrality.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to read this. The letter is 
addressed to Senator Bill Frist and Senator Harry Reid, the two leaders 
of our parties in the Senate. It says:

       Dear Senators Frist and Reid:
       As leaders in the networking and communications industries 
     striving to produce new technologies for our nation and the 
     world, we are pleased to support the Advanced 
     Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act (H.R. 5252) 
     as approved by the Senate Commerce Committee. It is our hope 
     that the full Senate will approve this legislation in the 
     very near future.
       We are particularly pleased that an Internet Consumers Bill 
     of Rights has been incorporated into this bill to address the 
     so-called ``network neutrality'' issue. We believe this 
     approach to net neutrality will ensure that consumers have 
     access to the content of their choice.
       We are strongly opposed to the adoption of mandated net 
     neutrality regulation sought by large Internet content 
     businesses for a number of reasons. First, the Internet has 
     benefited greatly from the relative absence of regulatory 
     restrictions, which has allowed content businesses to grow 
     and prosper. Congress has wisely refrained from burdening 
     this still-evolving medium with regulations, except in those 
     cases where the need for policy action has been clear, and it 
     can be narrowly tailored. This is not the time to deviate 
     from this posture.
       Second, it is too soon to enact network neutrality 
     legislation. The problem that the proponents of net 
     neutrality seek to address has not manifested itself in a way 
     that enables us to understand it clearly. Legislation aimed 
     at correcting a nebulous concern may have severe unintended 
     consequences and hobble the rapidly developing new 
     technologies and business models of the Internet. Third, 
     enacting network neutrality ``placeholder laws'' could have 
     the unintended effect of dissuading companies from investing 
     in broadband networks.
       We believe Congress would benefit from objective and 
     unbiased analysis of the claims made on both sides of this 
     debate, and that protecting consumer access while requiring 
     the FCC to study the issue is a reasonable way to proceed.
       Thank you for your leadership on this legislation. We stand 
     ready to build the world-class products that will be 
     available to consumers as a result of the increased 
     investment this bill will promote.

  It is signed, as I said, by 100 companies.
  By supporting this bill, because it encourages broadband deployment, 
they support the lighter regulatory approach to net neutrality, as I 
said. There has been much debate on this issue in the Senate Commerce 
Committee, in the House committees, on the House floor, in newspapers, 
and in the ``blogosphere,'' as it is called now. But some Senators 
still prevent full debate on this issue on the Senate floor. It is time 
now for the Senate to allow debate on this bill to start. America needs 
this bill.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               September 19, 2006.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Frist and Reid: As leaders in the networking 
     and communications industries striving to produce new 
     technologies for our nation and the world, we are pleased to 
     support the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities 
     Reform Act (H.R. 5252) as approved by the Senate Commerce 
     Committee. It is our hope that the full Senate will approve 
     this legislation in the very near future.
       We are particularly pleased that an Internet Consumers Bill 
     of Rights has been incorporated into the bill to address the 
     so-called ``network neutrality'' issue. We believe this 
     approach to net neutrality will ensure that consumers have 
     access to the content of their choice.
       We are strongly opposed to the adoption of mandated net 
     neutrality regulation sought by large Internet content 
     businesses for a number of reasons. First, the Internet has 
     benefited greatly from the relative absence of regulatory 
     restrictions, which has allowed content businesses to grow 
     and prosper. Congress has wisely refrained from burdening 
     this still-evolving medium with regulations, except in those 
     cases where the need for policy action has been clear, and it 
     can be narrowly tailored. This is not the time to deviate 
     from this posture.
       Second, it is too soon to enact network neutrality 
     legislation. The problem that the proponents of network 
     neutrality seek to address has not manifested itself in a way 
     that enables us to understand it clearly. Legislation aimed 
     at correcting a nebulous concern may have severe unintended 
     consequences and hobble the rapidly developing new 
     technologies and business models of the Internet. Third, 
     enacting network neutrality ``placeholder laws'' could have 
     the unintended effect of dissuading companies from investing 
     in broadband networks.
       We believe Congress would benefit from objective and 
     unbiased analysis of the claims made on both sides of this 
     debate, and that protecting consumer access while requiring 
     the FCC to study the issue is a reasonable way to proceed.
       Thank you for your leadership on this legislation. We stand 
     ready to build the world-class products that will be 
     available to consumers as a result of the increased 
     investment this bill will promote.
           Sincerely,
         2 Wire, Inc., 3M Company; AC Data Systems, Inc.; AC 
           Photonics, Inc.; Actiontec Electronics, Inc.; Active 
           Optical Mems, Inc.; ADC Telecommunications, Inc.; 
           Adtran, Inc.; AFL Telecommunications LLC; Agilent 
           Technologies, Inc.; Aktino, Inc.; Alcatel North 
           America; Allot Communications; Amedia Networks, Inc.; 
           Anda Networks; Anue Systems, Inc.; Applied 
           Optoelectronics, Inc.; Argent Associates, Inc.; Arnco 
           Corp.; Atlantic Engineering Group; Axerra Network.
         BaySpec, Inc.; Berry Test Sets, Inc.; BTECH Inc.; Carlon, 
           Lamson & Sessions; CBM of America, Inc.; Charles 
           Industries, Ltd.; Ciena Corporation; Cisco Systems, 
           Inc.; CoAdna Photonics, Inc.; Condux International, 
           Inc.; Conklin-Intracom; Corning Incorporated; 
           Communication Technology Services; Dantel, Inc.; Ditch 
           Witch (The Charles Machine Works, Inc.); DSM Desotech 
           Inc.; Dura-Line Corp.; Electrodata, Inc.; Ellacoya 
           Networks, Inc.; Enhanced Telecommunications, Inc.
         Entrisphere, Inc.; FiberControl; FiberSource, Inc.; 
           Finisar Corp.; Hammerhead Systems Inc.; Hatteras 
           Networks, Inc.; Hitachi Telecom (USA) Inc.; Howell 
           Communications; Independent Technologies Inc.; 
           Katolight Corp.; KMM Telecommunications, Inc.; 
           Leapstone Systems, Inc.; Lightel Technologies, Inc.; 
           Lucent Technologies Inc.; MasTec Inc.; MBE Telecom, 
           Inc.; Metrotel Corp.; Microwave Networks Inc.; 
           Motorola, Inc.; MRV Communications, Inc.
         NeoPhotonics Corp.; Neptco, Inc.; Norland Products Inc.; 
           Nortel Networks Corporation; NorthStar Communications 
           Group, Inc.; NSG America, Inc.; Nufern; OFS; Omnitron 
           Systems Technology, Inc.; OnTrac, Inc.; Optical

[[Page 18934]]

           Zonu, Inc.; PECO II, Inc.; Preformed Line Products, 
           Inc.; Prysmian Communications Cables and Systems USA, 
           LLC; Qualcomm Inc.; Quanta Services, Inc.; Redback 
           Networks Inc.; Roebbelen; Sheyenne Dakota, Inc.; Sigma 
           Designs Inc.
         SNC Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Sumitomo Electric 
           Lightwave Corp.; Sunrise Telecom, Inc.; Suttle 
           Apparatus Corp.; Symmetricom, Inc.; Team Alliance; Team 
           Fishel; Telamon Corp.; Telcobuy.com, LLC; Telesync, 
           Inc.; Tellabs, Inc.; Tyco Electronics Corp.; US Conec 
           Ltd.; Valere Power, Inc.; Vermeer Manufacturing 
           Company; Wave7 Optics, Inc.; White Rock Networks, Inc.; 
           Xecom, Inc.; Xponent Potonics Inc.; Zoomy 
           Communications, Inc.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to make some comments regarding 
the pending business, H.R. 6061, the act that came to us from the House 
of Representatives which is titled the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the 
essence of which would provide the authority for the United States to 
construct a variety of features across large portions of our border 
with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration.
  The point of this legislation is, of course, to follow through with a 
series of appropriations that we have now provided for to enhance our 
ability to put National Guard troops at the border, construct more 
fencing, construct more roads, more vehicle barriers, more sensors, 
more lights, more cameras, and provide more Border Patrol to patrol 
this large area of our border.
  The combination of all of these, personnel and infrastructure and 
technology enhancements, will enable us to gain effective control of 
our border. I am pleased that as a result of the appropriations we have 
passed over the last couple of years, we are now beginning to see our 
efforts pay off. In many areas of the border, the enhanced security is 
paying off. It is noticeable. I will cite some of the statistics to 
point that out.
  I express support for this legislation because it provides a roadmap. 
It makes it very clear where we are going. It establishes principles by 
which the Department of Homeland Security can operate with the funding 
we have been providing and will provide in the future.
  The essence of the legislation, as I said, is to provide more 
reinforced fencing, more physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, 
and sensors. The Secretary of Homeland Security obviously will 
determine the appropriate sequencing of when these things are 
constructed and the appropriate mix as to where you put the fencing, 
where you put the vehicle barriers, the sensors, and so forth. The bill 
itself, for example, recognizes that in mountainous areas, you would be 
exempt from providing some of the fencing. But the bottom line is to 
provide a combination of things which, in concert with personnel, will 
make it much more difficult for illegal entry into the United States. 
The net result will be that it will be much more difficult for 
smugglers and illegal aliens to gain entry into the country, it will 
significantly reduce crime rates in border towns, it will clearly 
improve the quality of life for Arizona and for the constituents I 
represent, and it will preserve the fragile desert lands and 
archeological resources which are being destroyed by the illegal 
pedestrian and vehicular traffic, again particularly along the area of 
the border between the State of Arizona and the area of Senora in 
northern Mexico.
  Let me talk for just a moment about the environmental impact because 
that has been a matter of some concern to those who view this 
legislation as simply involving the creation of some kind of a wall. 
Now, let me make it clear. This is not a wall. Fencing, per se, is not 
a wall. In fact, part of what we would be doing here is replacing the 
so-called landing mat fencing, which does look like a wall, with chain 
link-type fencing that you can see through. There are two reasons for 
this. The landing mat fencing is the steel landing mats that are left 
over from primarily World War II that can be stood on end and welded 
together, embedded in concrete pilings, and represent a barrier to 
entry into the country. They are high and it is hard to get over them 
but not at all impossible. All you need is a ladder on the other side 
of the fence and a willingness to fall down and maybe break an arm on 
this side, and a lot of people do that.
  The fencing is deteriorating. It is very difficult to repair because 
of its age. And for the Border Patrol, they can't see through it, so it 
represents a disadvantage to them because they can't see who is 
amassing on the other side of the border. They can't see where rocks 
are being thrown from, and now rock-throwing has been a highly 
dangerous problem for members of the Border Patrol. So they would 
prefer to have either single or, even better, double fencing which they 
could see through and which is a more modern design than this landing 
mat fencing. So far from being a wall, what is contemplated in this 
legislation is exactly the opposite. It involves a fence which you can 
see through combined with other kinds of technology such as vehicle 
barriers, cameras with which we can see illegal entry, sensors with 
which we can detect it, and lights which help us to see.
  Now, we are not going to put the fencing along the entire border, 
obviously. In some parts of the border, particularly near urban 
communities, we will extend the fencing. In other areas, the 
legislation contemplates vehicle barriers. This is important because in 
certain flat areas of the desert, a lot of vehicles are being brought 
across now. Ordinarily they are stolen in the United States, taken 
across the border, filled with some kind of contraband, be it illegal 
drugs or the human cargo the Coyotes pick up, and then they bring that 
across the border. Frequently, those vehicles are abandoned on our side 
of the border, representing an environmental hazard.
  But what the Border Patrol has discovered is that as they have begun 
to get more operational control or jurisdiction over the border area 
because of the increased number of Border Patrol agents and vehicles 
and fencing and so on that we have already provided, the Coyotes and 
the cartels--the drug smugglers, the gangs--are fighting for this 
operational control of territory, and they are using weapons. What the 
Border Patrol tells me is that whenever they see a vehicle, they know 
it is a problem because it has a more valuable cargo and is likely to 
be defended with weapons. That is one reason they are so insistent on 
putting vehicle barriers in some areas of the border.
  In some areas, fencing will not be appropriate, and cameras will do 
the job. I have been in the control rooms where we have one person able 
to monitor many different TV screens that represent the views of many 
different cameras, some of which are infrared, so you can see at night. 
This way, you don't have to have fencing all along the border; you have 
cameras which can show you what is happening. When you see groups of 
illegal immigrants massing on the other side of the border, preparing 
to cross, the person in the control area calls the Border Patrol, and 
they are able to get to the location in time to stop the entry or to 
pick up the people and return them if they have already entered.
  Again, you don't need fencing across the entire border. It is not a 
wall. It is not solid fencing. It is a combination of things which, 
working together, will enable us to secure the border.
  I mentioned the environment because I think it is important for us to 
recognize that more fencing and these other techniques can actually 
help improve our environment. It does not degrade the environment. The 
illegal border crossing traffic has created thousands of new trails and 
roads on Federal lands in Arizona. I am going to submit for the Record 
the documentation of each of the things I am saying here rather than 
provide them orally, but for each of these comments I am making, there 
is documentation through hearings that have been held, through reports 
that have been issued, through stories that have appeared in newspapers 
and so on.
  For example, the Defenders of Wildlife notes that since 2002, 180 
miles of illegal roads have been created in the Cabeza Prieta National 
Wildlife Refuge

[[Page 18935]]

alone. This is a wildlife refuge we have set aside for the pronghorn 
antelope and bighorn sheep and other species we want to protect, and 
the entry of all of these vehicles, illegally creating these new roads, 
is substantially disrupting the habitat, for example, for the bighorn 
sheep. The illegal roads divert the normal flow of water, and they rob 
native plant cover of the moisture it needs to survive. The 
proliferation of trails and roads damages the flora and fauna--the 
cactus, for example, and other sensitive vegetation--and disrupts and 
even prevents the revegetation of the area. You can see tracks in the 
desert that were created over 50 or 60 years ago, and it takes that 
long for the fragile desert to recover. That is one of the unfortunate 
results of all of this illegal immigration, which could be prevented 
with more vehicle barriers and fencing along the border.
  The trails obviously create soil compacts and then erosion which, in 
other areas, results in damage. I have seen with my own eyes the tons 
of trash that is left behind. If you can imagine millions of people 
over the course of time trying to cross the border and leaving behind 
hundreds of thousands of plastic water jugs and items of clothing and 
elements in backpacks and the like, it is just incredible, what you 
see, and it creates all kinds of problems. This proliferation of trash 
and, by the way, concentrations of human waste, I would also note, 
impacts wildlife and vegetation and water quality. It detracts from the 
scenic qualities, obviously, and can affect human and animal health 
from the spread of bacteria and disease. Trash is also ingested by 
wildlife and livestock, which sometimes results in illness or even 
death of the livestock and wildlife.
  In the early 1990s, over 300 wildfires were caused by campfires of 
illegal immigrants, which additionally poses a threat both to the 
environment and to human safety in these areas.
  The damage is not limited to the compaction, and so on, by human 
traffic. As I noted, vehicles coming across create their own special 
set of problems. Abandoned vehicles are often left in place, and the 
burden of removing them falls to the Government, which has to very 
carefully try to get to the vehicles without creating new roads and 
trails and get them removed without causing even more environmental 
damage. If they are not removed quickly, they are often set on fire by 
vandals. They have fluids that leak into the watershed and into water 
courses. As I said, further removal causes additional damage as the tow 
trucks are forced to navigate previously unspoiled areas of the desert.
  Interestingly, the illegal immigrants frequently take vegetation from 
the environment to build shelters, and by taking a lot of the ocotillo 
cactus, for example, they are removing a very important species from 
the desert to build these camouflages, drug stashes, and temporary 
shelters.
  Also, interestingly, when illegal aliens fill water bottles in the 
wetland locations, it has been determined that they have actually 
infected these protected Federal wetlands with invasive parasites and 
diseases which have been carried with them in the water levels which 
have harmed native fish and wildlife. In fact, in a report to the House 
of Representatives committee, according to this report, new tapeworms 
and fungi have already impacted populations of endangered fish and 
frogs.
  So when we talk about the potential damage to the environment from 
the fences, it is easy to see that there is far more of a benefit than 
a cost to creating impediments to illegal entry which is creating the 
kind of environmental impacts I am talking about.
  Just to give one summary impact, Coronado National Forest, which is 
on the border in the area of Tucson, experienced the following 
environmental degradation from the period 1996 to 2006: 298 abandoned 
motor vehicles, 300 miles of significant damage to environmental 
resources caused by off-road vehicle use, 120 human-caused wildfires.
  There is an interesting parallel with the fence which was built in 
the San Diego area. There was concern about the environment there as 
well. But not only has the construction of that triple fence in the 
area of San Diego virtually stopped illegal immigration in that area, 
it has significantly reduced crime on both sides of the border because 
the criminals who used to congregate in the area are no longer 
congregating in the area because they can't get across. The result is 
the San Diego fence has significantly improved the environment in the 
area, with grasslands coming back and the return of protected species 
that hadn't been reported in the area for years. I believe all of this 
is an important element in that debate, demonstrating that the 
additional fencing and other border technology can help to prevent 
environmental damage.
  But what of the primary purpose of the fencing to prevent illegal 
entry? This is important for a variety of reasons. Due to the close 
proximity of the border to a number of major highways in the State of 
Arizona, illegal immigrant and drug trafficking is often intense. When 
smugglers can manage to reach the roads, they often resort to excessive 
speed, driving without lights, and driving down the wrong side of the 
road to escape law enforcement. There have been a lot of injuries and 
deaths and attacks on Border Patrol that have resulted. We had an 
actual shoot-out on the freeway between Tucson and Phoenix between two 
rival gangs who were contesting to see who could own the illegal 
immigrants in the van at issue. Frequently, these vans are wrecked, 
overturned, and a lot of illegal immigrants are killed or injured.
  In the one unfortunate case, in the town of Sierra Vista near the 
border, an elderly couple in the community had just gotten married--I 
believe it was the week before--and they were simply driving through an 
intersection, minding their own business, when, with excessive speed in 
order to avoid apprehension, a load of illegal immigrants came crashing 
through, hit their vehicle, and killed them both. You can imagine the 
sorrow as well as the anger in this small community when these 
wonderful people, who were known to many of the residents of the 
community, when their lives were extinguished right after they were 
married and looking forward to some very happy years because of this 
illegal activity. This has real impacts on people's lives in the United 
States, and that is another reason to end it.
  We had testimony in the subcommittee which I chair--of the Judiciary 
Committee--Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, about the 
number of illegal immigrants who cross who are criminals or who are 
wanted for crimes. It isn't just a matter of keeping people from 
entering the United States to work. The testimony was, by the head of 
the Border Patrol, that now over 10 percent of the illegal immigrants 
apprehended coming into this country are criminals. I am not talking 
about immigration violations; I am talking about serious crimes such as 
homicide, rape, assault, kidnapping, serious drug crimes. It is not 
only overloading our law enforcement and court systems, but it is also 
creating a huge problem at the border.
  The U.S. attorney for Arizona, Paul Charlton, testified that last 
year assaults at the border were up 108 percent. Why? Because, as I 
said before, the Border Patrol and law enforcement is now contesting 
the territory that before the cartels and the coyotes had some degree 
of control over, and they are fighting back. They are fighting back 
with weapons, and they are also fighting back with things like rocks, 
which you may not think is a threat until you get hit in the head with 
one and are severely injured and maimed, really, for the rest of your 
life.
  There is a lot to protect with more fencing, more vehicle barriers, 
more cameras, more sensors, and the like at our border. It is 
interesting that vehicle barriers, which are important because, as I 
said, whenever the Border Patrol sees a vehicle, they know they have a 
problem because of an important value in the load. Vehicle barriers 
have worked in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife area, for example, 
where there has been a 90-percent reduction. In the Organ Pipe Cactus 
National Monument there has been a 95 percent

[[Page 18936]]

reduction in vehicle traffic. It can work. But we have to do it.
  People say we have tried it and it doesn't work. We have barely 
started. In fact, there are almost four times as many New York City 
police officers as there are members of the Border Patrol. So our 
effort now to build up the Border Patrol, add this fencing, add the 
vehicle barriers, add the cameras, and all these things to the border 
is beginning to have an impact. It can work. We simply have to do more. 
That is what this legislation would provide.
  I will not cite the statistics, but there is great evidence that the 
fencing in the San Diego area has substantially reduced the amount of 
illegal traffic across the border. It used to represent about half of 
the border crossings. It is now down to 10 percent. In the area of the 
triple fence, it is practically zero, I am told.
  The bottom line is that we can make a substantial difference by not 
only appropriating the money--I saw, just a moment ago, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee here, and the subcommittee in charge of 
appropriations for this effort. The Senator from New Hampshire was on 
the Senate floor a moment ago. I commend him again for his efforts, 
primarily in the last couple of years, to make funds available to do 
all these things.
  As I said, we are moving forward with this at the border, and it is 
beginning to make a difference. What the legislation passed in the 
House of Representatives will enable us to do is to have a clear path, 
a clear guideline of exactly what we are going to do. It provides 
discretion to the Department of Homeland Security about what exactly to 
do in what areas. It is not a fence along the entire border, it is a 
combination of these different things as the Department of Homeland 
Security deems appropriate. But we believe, in consultation with the 
Border Patrol, with local officials, that they can determine where best 
to put each of these assets and how to sequence their construction in 
such a way as to eventually gain control of the border, and that should 
be our first goal here: to establish control of the border, to secure 
the border so we can move on with the other elements of comprehensive 
immigration reform which, incidentally, I support very strongly. But I 
think most of us agree a first step must be to secure the border.
  I commend this bill to my colleagues. I hope we will be able to get 
cloture on Monday and we can proceed to its adoption. For those 
constituents in my home State of Arizona, this would be a very big 
benefit since over half of the illegal immigrants now entering the 
United States come through my State of Arizona. This is critically 
important for my State, but it is also important for the United States, 
and I hope my colleagues will join together to support this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
some background materials on this subject.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Nearly 50 percent of the illegal aliens crossing the 
     southern border of the United States enter through Arizona in 
     the Tucson and Yuma Sectors. In fiscal year 2006, more than 
     161,253 illegal aliens have been apprehended in Tucson 
     Sector, and 61,974 illegal aliens in Yuma Sector. [Source: 
     CBP].
       Illegal cross border traffic has created thousands of new 
     trails and roads on Federal lands in southern Arizona. Report 
     to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations 
     on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal 
     Lands in Southeast Arizona, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. at 3 
     (2002).
       Since 2002, 180 miles of illegal roads have been created in 
     the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge alone. Brian P. 
     Segee, On the Line: The Impacts of Immigration Policy of 
     Wildlife and Habitat in the Arizona Borderlands, Defenders of 
     Wildlife Report 20 (2006).
       Illegal roads divert the normal flow of water and rob the 
     native plant cover of the moisture it depends on to survive. 
     Kathleen Ingley, Ghost Highways, Arizona Republic, May 15, 
     2005.
       The proliferation of trails and roads damages and destroys 
     cactus and other sensitive vegetation, disrupts or prohibits 
     re-vegetation, disturbs wildlife and their cover and travel 
     routes, causes soil compaction and erosion [and] impacts 
     stream bank stability. Report to the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Appropriations on Impacts Caused by Undocumented 
     Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona, 107th 
     Cong., 2d Sess. at 3 (2002).
       Tons of trash and high concentrations of human waste are 
     left behind by undocumented aliens. This impacts wildlife, 
     vegetation and water quality in the uplands, in washes and 
     along rivers and streams. This also detracts from scenic 
     qualities and can affect human and animal health from spread 
     of bacteria and disease. Report to the House of 
     Representatives Committee on Appropriations on Impacts Caused 
     by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast 
     Arizona, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. at 3 (2002). Trash is also 
     ingested by wildlife and livestock, sometimes resulting in 
     illness and death. Id. at 20.
       In the early 1990s, over 300 wildfires caused by campfires 
     of illegal immigrants posed a significant threat to human 
     safety and wild lands along the border, as well as increased 
     impacts to soils, vegetation, cultural sites, and other 
     sensitive resources. Border Security on Federal Lands: What 
     Can be Done to Mitigate Impacts Along the Southwestern 
     Border: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Resources, 109th 
     Cong., 2d Sess. at 2 (2006) (statement of Steve Borchard, 
     Dept. of the Interior).
       Vehicles used by drug and human traffickers are often 
     damaged, resulting in fluid spills (gasoline, motor oil, 
     radiator fluid, etc.) and spreading hazardous debris (glass, 
     torn sheet metal, etc.) that harm the environment. Abandoned 
     vehicles are often left in place and the burden of removing 
     them falls on Federal law enforcement officials. If the 
     vehicles are not removed quickly, they are often set afire by 
     vandals, creating an even larger safety and environmental 
     concern. Border Security on Federal Lands: What Can be Done 
     to Mitigate Impacts Along the Southwestern Border: Hearing 
     Before the H. Comm. on Resources, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. at 4 
     (2006) (statement of Steve Borchard, Dept. of the Interior).
       After blazing destructive paths through the desert, large 
     numbers of vehicles are abandoned by smugglers and illegal 
     aliens. These vehicles emit pollutants, like gasoline, oils, 
     antifreeze, and lead, which often soak into the ground and 
     can reach water sources. Further, removal often causes 
     additional damage as tow trucks are forced to navigate 
     previously unspoiled terrain to access the abandoned 
     vehicles. Report to the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Appropriations on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens 
     Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona, 107th Cong., 2d 
     Sess. at 17-18 (2002).
       Illegal aliens trample the native vegetation in riparian 
     areas in an effort to get water and uproot native plants like 
     ocotillo cactus to build temporary shelters or to camouflage 
     drug stashes. Report to the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Appropriations on Impacts Caused by Undocumented 
     Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona, 107th 
     Cong., 2d Sess. at 15 (2002).
       When illegal aliens fill water bottles in wetland locations 
     they can infect these protected Federal wetlands with 
     invasive parasites and diseases which can doom native fish 
     and wildlife. New tapeworms and funguses have already 
     impacted populations of endangered fish and frogs. Report to 
     the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on 
     Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands 
     in Southeast Arizona, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. at 23 (2002).
       Illegal aliens transport in seeds from invasive plant 
     species. Report to the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Appropriations on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens 
     Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona, 107th Cong., 2d 
     Sess. at 23 (2002). And since the vehicles on the road have 
     churned up the soil and diverted the water flow, these new 
     plants can take root. Kathleen Ingley, Ghost Highways, 
     Arizona Republic, May 15, 2005.
       The Coronado National Forest experienced the following 
     environmental degradation 1996-2001: 298 abandoned motor 
     vehicles; 300 miles of significant damage to natural 
     resources caused by off-road vehicle use; and 112 human-
     caused wildfires. Report to the House of Representatives 
     Committee on Appropriations on Impacts Caused by Undocumented 
     Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona, 107th 
     Cong., 2d Sess. at F-5 (2002).
       The construction of the San Diego fence has resulted in the 
     return of protected species that have not been reported in 
     the area for many years. Border Security on Federal Lands: 
     What Can be Done to Mitigate Impacts Along the Southwestern 
     Border: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Resources, 109th 
     Cong., 2d Sess. at 1 (2006) (statement of Chris Ingram, Gulf 
     South Research Corporation).
       Due to the close proximity of the border to a number of 
     major highways, illegal immigrant and drug trafficking is 
     often intense. If smugglers manage to reach the road, they 
     often resort to excessive speed, driving without lights, or 
     driving down the wrong side of the road to escape law 
     enforcement officers, resulting in accidents, injuries, and 
     death. Border Security on Federal Lands: What Can be Done to 
     Mitigate Impacts Along the Southwestern Border: Hearing 
     Before the H.

[[Page 18937]]

     Comm. on Resources, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. at 4 (2006) 
     (statement of Steve Borchard, Dept. of the Interior).
       Much of the existing pedestrian barriers consist of 
     unsightly ``landing mat'' wall structures that are 
     operationally unsound, as Border Patrol Agents cannot see 
     through them to monitor developing events on the Mexican 
     side, and are more vulnerable to being struck with rocks that 
     they cannot see coming. The landing mat fences are so aged 
     and damaged that they cannot easily be repaired, and when 
     corrugated, can have doors cut into them that are difficult 
     to detect. Vehicle barriers will help stop ingress of armed 
     human and drug traffickers, and end mistaken incursions by 
     Mexican military units into U.S. territory. [Source: CBP].
       Vehicle barriers significantly reduce illegal vehicle 
     traffic. Since installation, the Buenos Aires National 
     Wildlife Refuge has seen a 90 percent reduction in vehicle 
     traffic in some areas, and the Organ Pipe Cactus National 
     Monument has seen an estimated 95 percent reduction in 
     vehicle traffic. Corinne Purtill, New Fences Protecting 
     Fragile Areas on Border, The Arizona Republic, August 26, 
     2006 (verified by Customs and Border Protection Sept. 19, 
     2006).
       In 1992, the Border Patrol apprehended 565,581 illegal 
     immigrants in the San Diego Sector, which constituted 47 
     percent of illegal immigrants apprehended by the Border 
     Patrol that year. After construction of fencing was 
     accelerated as part of Operation Gatekeeper in 1993, the 
     annual numbers began a steady decline. In 2005, 126,913 
     aliens were apprehended in the San Diego Sector, which was 
     just 10 percent of the total number interdicted by the Border 
     Patrol. (Source: Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would just like to add to what my 
colleague from Arizona has said about the importance of border 
security. One of the clear priorities in the debate about immigration 
is what are we going to do to take steps to ensure that we stem the 
flow of illegal immigration in this country. The Senator from Arizona 
has been a great leader on this issue. I commend him for that. Of 
course his State is right down there on the border. But, ironically, 
even in my State, the State of South Dakota, which is somewhat removed 
from the border, we are experiencing the effects, some of the negative 
effects of immigration.
  In fact, I had a meeting not long ago with law enforcement personnel 
in my State--State, Federal, local law enforcement--to talk about the 
methamphetamine issue which has become a real epidemic in my State like 
it has in many other places. In fact, methamphetamine arrests were up 
45 percent last year in Sioux Falls, which is our biggest city. There 
is what is known as the I-29 corridor, from Sioux City to Sioux Falls, 
beyond to South Dakota, and up into North Dakota. It has become 
afflicted with the methamphetamine crisis.
  As I met with them, one of the things that became very clear is that 
much of what is driving the methamphetamine scourge in our area of the 
country is people who have come here illegally. It is illegal 
immigrants who come in and set up these distribution systems in this 
country, and they are targeting the Indian reservations. There have 
been a number of stories about how the methamphetamine--if you want to 
call them cartels or whatever--have looked for places in the United 
States where they have wide open space, which we have on our 
reservations in South Dakota and we do not have sufficient law 
enforcement to necessarily keep up with some of those problems. They 
are targeting Indian reservations.
  I talked to one law enforcement individual from one of the 
reservations who said they had just sent back somebody who had come 
into this country, broken the law on the reservation, for the ninth 
time. That is how easy it has become to get in and out of this country 
illegally. That is why it is important this issue be addressed.
  I understand there are differences of opinion in the Senate about how 
to address this; whether or not we ought to have a comprehensive 
approach or how we deal with those who are already here illegally. I 
think those are all points of debate and issues we need to continue to 
discuss and resolve. But we have to start fundamentally with stopping 
the problem now. The people of this country expect us to act. It is a 
matter of national security.
  We have the possibility of terrorist organizations using our open, 
porous border as an opportunity to get a foothold in this country. As I 
have said, we have a lot of law enforcement issues related to people 
who come here illegally and then commit illegal acts--the 
methamphetamine incidents I talked about in South Dakota being one 
example. But, clearly, we need to start sealing, securing this southern 
border to make sure the people of this country have confidence that we 
are taking the steps necessary to stem the flow of illegal immigration 
and to get this issue under control.
  I appreciate the work the chairman of the Budget Committee and others 
have done to put more resources and funds toward that because I think 
it has made a profound difference already. But, frankly, this 
legislation we are considering today is important because it will send 
a loud, clear message to the people in this country that we are serious 
about this issue of illegal immigration, starting with securing the 
border.
  The other issues that follow from that we can debate. There is an 
agreement on that. I think the one thing there is agreement on, the one 
thing people in this country want to see action on now is let's get 
this border secure. So this border security bill that has come over 
from the House and is being debated in the Senate, I hope we will get a 
vote on it and be able to pass it through the Senate and put something 
on the President's desk that will move us in the right direction, a 
direction that will discourage people from coming here illegally. The 
thing we want to do is discourage people from coming here illegally.
  I say that as a person one generation removed from immigrant status. 
My grandfather and great-uncle came here from Norway in 1906. We are a 
nation of immigrants. People come for the same reason they did: they 
want to experience the American dream.
  We are a welcoming nation, and we are also a nation of laws. We need 
to enforce those laws, and this legislation moves us in that direction. 
It deals with what is the first priority in this debate, and that is 
securing the American border so that not only from a national security 
standpoint, a law enforcement standpoint but, frankly, just so people 
in this country know and people in other countries in the world who 
want to come here illegally know that we are a nation of laws, and we 
are going to enforce those laws.
  That is where this debate should start. This will give us an 
opportunity to do something about which I think there is broad 
agreement. We can address the other issues in due time, but right now, 
in the time we have left in the Senate before we adjourn, it is 
important we address this issue.
  I want to speak to one other matter. I came to the floor yesterday, 
and I want to follow up on something I said.
  For anybody who watched the comments at the United Nations made by 
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, it should have removed any doubt about the 
importance of American energy independence. We need to become energy 
independent. We get a million barrels of oil a day from Venezuela. This 
is a country whose leader was spewing hatred at the United States; 
someone who, in the past, has said that the President and his 
administration were responsible and behind the 9/11 attacks.
  This is a country, and many of the other countries like that one, 
where we get the majority of our energy. They are countries that are 
hostile to the United States. They want to use the leverage they have 
as a political weapon against the United States.
  The way we avoid that from happening is America becomes energy 
independent. We need more sources of American energy. We need to take 
steps so that we have the supply in this country that will enable us to 
meet the needs that we have in our economy, without having to get 
energy from the Middle East or from Venezuela, OPEC, other countries 
that have very hostile intentions toward the United States.
  Yesterday, I came down here to talk about a bill that will move us in 
that direction. I have legislation that is pending in the Senate. It 
has passed the House. As a matter of fact, it passed the House by a 
huge margin, 355

[[Page 18938]]

to 9, broad bipartisan support coming from the House. It comes here 
from the Senate. Senator Salazar and I have a substitute amendment to 
that which has been cleared by the Republicans in the Senate. The House 
has said as soon as we send it back to them they will pass it and it 
will be put on the President's desk. But we have a series of secret 
holds on the Democratic side in the Senate.
  I know that is part of the tradition of the Senate. I don't happen to 
think it is a good part of the tradition of the Senate, that people can 
put a secret hold on a bill and you don't have any idea who has a hold 
on it, what their issues are. I have my suspicions, since this is an 
even-numbered year, about why some of these holds are being placed on 
this bill. Nevertheless, it has the relevant committee's blessing. It 
has been approved by the committees here.
  As I said, we have cleared all the traps on the Republican side of 
the aisle in the Senate. So the legislation is ready to be passed, sent 
back to the House, sent to the President, and signed into law. But we 
have a series of secret holds on the Democratic side in the Senate. 
That is wrong. Whatever the motivations are, this is policy that is 
important to the country.
  I just mentioned the issue of energy security, of energy 
independence. This is an issue that strikes at the very heart and core 
of almost every issue we are debating in the country today, whether it 
is the economy and the cost of energy, whether it is national security, 
foreign policy--energy, the fact that we depend upon foreign sources 
for our energy supply in this country, is a very serious and vexing 
problem. We have to address it. We need to put policies in place that 
will create more supply here in America.
  This legislation, again, very briefly--to explain it because I 
explained a little bit yesterday--fills the distribution gap that we 
have in the area of renewable energy. We passed an energy policy last 
summer. Part of our policy is a renewable fuels standard which 
guarantees a market for ethanol and other types of bioenergy. We now 
have a lot of plants around the country that are operating at full 
capacity, producing ethanol. We have plants under construction. My 
State of South Dakota has been at the forefront of that movement, but 
we will very shortly be at a billion gallons a year production of 
ethanol.
  The problem we have is we do not have a way of getting it to the 
consumer in this country because we don't have enough refueling 
stations, gas stations, and convenience stores that have installed the 
pumps that are necessary to deliver E85 to consumers in this country.
  This was an ad that was run in one of the local publications here, 
Congress Daily. I saw it a few days ago. I saw it again today in that 
same publication. It is put out by the Auto Alliance. The Auto Alliance 
in this country, which represents the major car manufacturers, is very 
much supporting this legislation. What this ad says is that there are 9 
million alternative fuel autos in this country today--and counting: 9 
million cars in America today that are what we call flex-fuel vehicles; 
that is, they are capable of running either on traditional gasoline or 
E85 ethanol. Nine million vehicles--they are ramping up, building, and 
manufacturing more flex-fuel vehicles. If you watch the television 
advertisements today and you see the auto manufacturers run their 
advertising, they are talking more and more about flex-fuel vehicles. 
This is an important priority for the auto industry. They have the cars 
that are out there that are capable of using E85. The problem is, there 
are not enough filling stations that have it available.
  In their letter that they sent in support of this bill, the Alliance 
of Auto Manufacturers says--and I used the number yesterday. This is a 
slightly different number, but it is in the ballpark. I said there were 
600 gas stations in this country that offer E85 out of a total of 
18,000. In their letter they say 830 gas stations, so maybe it has gone 
up a little bit, out of the total number of gas stations in the country 
that have E85 ability.
  There are 9 million vehicles and counting that can run on flex fuel 
using E85 or other bioenergy--only using the high number of 830 
refueling stations where they can get that.
  In the Midwest where I am from, in South Dakota, we have a number of 
filling stations that make E85 available. But that is the exception and 
not the rule.
  Our bill provides an incentive for these refuelers to install E85 
pumps, not just E85. This isn't just an ethanol issue; other 
alternative energy types of fuels can be used. But it provides an 
incentive for them to install pumps to make renewable energy and 
alternative sources of energy more readily available to consumers in 
this country. It does it very simply by providing grants up to $30,000 
per pump at the gas station. Because they can install more than one, 
they can take advantage of the incentive more than once. If they 
install an E85 pump, they can get up to $30,000 to do that. The cost of 
installing one of those pumps, depending on where you are in the 
country, is between $40,000 and $200,000.
  The simple fact is, this incentive will go a long way. As has been 
noted, and as I said, the auto manufacturers sent a letter supporting 
the bill, as has the National Association of Convenience Stores which 
represents all of the gas stations around the country. They are 
supporting this; the auto manufacturers are supporting this.
  It does not affect the budget because we paid for it. The way we paid 
for it is by using the fines that are paid by foreign auto 
manufacturers for violations of fuel efficiency standards. Take a fine 
which has been paid and apply those dollars toward a program that 
provides incentives for fuel retailers to install five pumps and other 
pumps that offer other forms of alternative energy.
  But, frankly, as I said before, it is an important priority. We have 
auto manufacturers making the cars, ethanol producers that are 
producing the ethanol, you have consumers in this country who want this 
product, and you have a requirement now, because of the renewable fuels 
standard that we passed last year and put into law in the Energy bill, 
that States meet those standards. You have all of these things 
clicking. And Hugo Chavez comes to the United States and at the U.N. in 
a vitriolic way attacks our country and our leaders. Here we are 
getting a million barrels of oil a day from that country.
  We need American energy. We need to be energy independent. We need to 
move America in a direction toward the future and take us away from 
relying on the traditional sources of energy.
  We get almost 55 percent of our energy from outside the United 
States--and that has to change.
  This legislation is broadly supported. It came out of the House by a 
vote of 355 to 9. It is broadly supported.
  I have had Senators from both sides of the aisle come up to me--and, 
of course, I said it is cleared on the Republican side. I have had 
Democratic Senators say they really support the legislation. This is a 
good thing.
  Again, I am at a loss--it is a mystery to me--to try to explain why 
anyone would be opposed to this. The only thing I can suggest is there 
are perhaps some election year motivations. I don't know the answer to 
that. I hope that is not the case.
  This is the right thing to do for the country. It is the right policy 
to put in place for America's future. I call on my colleagues on the 
Democratic side who have these anonymous, secret holds--we don't know 
who is holding it up. I wish I knew the answer to that. I would love to 
have them come down here and defend their position because there is 
absolutely no logical reason anybody would object to this piece of 
legislation which implements policy, consistent with the energy policy 
that we adopted last summer, the renewable fuels standard, and make 
available for people in this country E85 ethanol.
  There are 9 million automobiles in this country and counting that can 
run on E85. If you use the generous estimate, there are 850 refueling 
stations. That is a terrible gap. We need to fill that gap in the 
distribution system in this country. This legislation would do that.

[[Page 18939]]

  It is ready for action in the House, and it is ready to go to the 
President for his signature.
  But we have, as I said, some anonymous and secret holds on the 
Democrat side preventing this legislation from moving forward.
  I ask my colleagues--I urge my colleagues--on the other side of the 
aisle to release those holds and allow this bipartisan legislation, 
this important legislation, to get to the President's desk so we can 
begin to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy, on 
dictators, and countries like Venezuela and Iran, and have American-
grown energy that will make America independent as we head into the 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank you. I ask unanimous consent to 
speak for 5 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Equal Opportunity for Asian Americans

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to bring to the 
attention of our colleagues a full-page article which ran in the 
business section of the Washington Post recently headlined ``American 
Core Values, Equal Opportunity.'' I had some discussion in my caucus 
this week focusing on diversity and focusing on diversity of our own 
staff here on Capitol Hill and how well we are doing. This is an issue 
that is on my mind.
  Some of my colleagues may be familiar with something called the 80-20 
Educational Foundation which seeks to promote equal opportunity for 
Asian Americans. The president of the foundation, as it turns out, is a 
colleague and friend of mine, a constituent. He is former Lieutenant 
Governor, recently retired physics professor at the University of 
Delaware, Dr. S.B. Woo.
  Here are some of the findings of 88-20's research as spelled out in 
the article in the paper.
  No. 1. When compared to Whites, African-Americans, Hispanics, and 
women, Asian-Americans have the lowest odds of rising to management 
level positions in private industry, universities, and even in the 
Federal Government.
  No. 2. This is interesting because 80-20's research also indicates 
that Asian-Americans are much more likely to obtain a college degree or 
higher than Whites, African-Americans, Hispanics, or women.
  The data indicates that Asian-Americans have half the chance of 
Whites of rising to management-level positions.
  If this is right, then this is wrong.
  From the charts, we can also see that African-Americans, Hispanics, 
and women are still lagging behind as well. They are also less likely 
to rise to management level positions. And, perhaps more troubling for 
the future, they are also much less likely to obtain advanced degrees.
  This country was founded on the premise that all men and all women 
are created equal and that we must always strive for equality and 
justice for all of us.
  We have made great strides over the years. We have taken steps to get 
closer to that goal of equality and justice for all. As I have often 
said, we can obviously make it better.
  But an important part of that fight--which I think is illustrated in 
the Washington Post--is keeping vigilant. We must continue to stay 
vigilant to promote equal opportunity for all Americans, not just 
Asian-Americans. Each of the groups in these charts faces different 
barriers, different challenges. And although we have made great 
progress in the opportunities for all Americans, we cannot become 
complacent and assume that there is no work left to be done.
  The fight for equal opportunity is a fight we must not allow to lag.
  I hope my colleagues will consider the important information that is 
presented here today and maybe take the opportunity to look at it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the Washington Post item printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                America's Core Value: Equal Opportunity

       What makes America great also enhances competitiveness.
       Asian Americans yearn to make greater contributions to our 
     country.
       However, today, Asian Americans have the least opportunity 
     to enter management and the slowest rate of progress towards 
     equal employment opportunity, despite having the highest 
     educational attainment.
       As the world's economic and geopolitical centers shift, can 
     our nation afford to waste some of her best human resources?
       [Chart 1]
       [Chart 2]
       Research Shows
       A. Asian Americans have the lowest odds of getting into 
     management in private industries, universities and the 
     Federal government. 2.1 million Asian Americans work in the 
     three sectors (see Chart 1). Data come from government 
     sources and the methodology from the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission.
       B. Should Asian Americans be more patient? The rate of 
     progress from 1996 to 2001 for all workers in Chart 1 was 
     studied. Although Asian Americans are twice the distance from 
     equal opportunity (the blue dashed line) compared with 
     Hispanics and women, Asian Americans' rate of progress is 
     only half that of the latter groups. At the current rate, 
     equal opportunity will not be reached by Asian Americans in 
     another 75 years or three more generations.
       C. Asian Americans face these realities of low odds and a 
     three-generation waiting period despite having the highest 
     educational attainment, according to data from US Census 2000 
     (see Chart 2). Educational attainments have come to all from 
     deep sacrifices of parents and sheer diligence by their 
     children.

  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand I have 14 minutes with respect 
to postcloture debate. I ask unanimous consent to speak beyond those 14 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Medicare Part D

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my deep concerns 
about the Medicare Part D Program. The ``D'' was supposed to stand for 
a new prescription drug benefit, but now seniors are finding that ``D'' 
really stands for doughnut hole. Unlike most other types of health 
insurance, the Medicare drug benefit was intentionally designed with a 
coverage gap or doughnut hole that requires beneficiaries to pay for 
all yearly prescription drug spending between $2,250 and $5,100.
  Let me explain. It is baffling to most people that the Part D Program 
was designed so that beneficiaries paying premiums each month receive 
support for their drug costs until they have spent $2,250, and suddenly 
the insurance goes away. The premium stays, but the insurance goes away 
until you reach $5,100. That is an unusual insurance program, to say 
the least. Seniors will experience this lapse in coverage once their 
drug costs have exceeded $2,250. When they are in the doughnut hole, 
they have to pay for all the drugs out of pocket, as well as paying the 
monthly premium. That does not sound like a sensible insurance program. 
That is, in effect, what this Part D Program involves.
  According to one estimate published in the journal Health Affairs, 
the average Part D beneficiary will spend almost $3,100 this year on 
prescription drugs. So the President's idea of cost containment is not 
to drive pharmaceutical manufacturers to rein in prices but to just cut 
off seniors' benefits when they most need the coverage.
  Many Medicare beneficiaries with high drug expenses already have 
begun to fall into the doughnut hole and are struggling to pay for 
their medications or are unable to fill their prescriptions at all. It 
has been reported that average Medicare Part D beneficiaries will also 
begin falling into the doughnut hole this week. It almost sounds like 
``Alice in Wonderland,'' where suddenly you are swept into a new world 
as you go through the hole. A world that requires seniors to come up 
with their

[[Page 18940]]

the resources to pay for these premiums as well as their prescription 
drugs.
  I am hearing from many seniors in my State facing problems with 
Medicare Part D. I know I am not alone. I think every Member of this 
Senate, when they go home and talk to seniors, is hearing it. We will 
hear it with more frequency as their expenses increase and their 
experience with the doughnut hole increases.
  In one case, an individual sent a letter to the Rhode Island attorney 
general and copied me on it because they thought a crime was being 
committed. They literally thought they were being robbed because one 
day they got help with the prescriptions, and the next day there is no 
help at all.
  Now ``D,'' besides standing for doughnut hole, stands for dire 
circumstances. These are the circumstances in which seniors will find 
themselves unless we do something to fix this problem because the 
doughnut hole will only get bigger and bigger year after year.
  Today, over 38 million Americans on Medicare have some form of 
prescription drug coverage. Of these beneficiaries, 10 million have 
coverage through a standard Part D prescription drug plan, and up to 7 
million could be subject to the doughnut hole between now and the end 
of the year. The numbers will only grow in the coming years if the 
administration allows drug prices to continue to escalate. What trips 
seniors into the doughnut hole is the cumulative spending on drugs. If 
drug prices go up, seniors very quickly reach that threshold where the 
doughnut hole kicks in. Tragically, many beneficiaries are unaware that 
this coverage gap exists and only learn about this lapse after they 
have fallen into the hole. To add insult to injury, these beneficiaries 
are expected to continue paying monthly premiums through their drug 
plans even though they receive absolutely no coverage in return. This 
is a very unusual health care plan, to be paying a monthly premium but 
not be eligible for coverage.
  When we pay health care premiums, we hope we don't have to use any of 
the coverage, that we are healthy and well, but we all have in the back 
of our minds the knowledge: If something happens that month, I am 
eligible, I can get the help. Not so in the doughnut hole. Seniors keep 
paying the monthly premium, and then they pay, out of pocket, the full 
cost of the prescription.
  I didn't support the Medicare Modernization Act which created Part D 
because I believed the benefit was insufficient and the emphasis on a 
privately administered program made it excessively complex. By relying 
on over 40 private plans in each region, each with a different benefit 
structure, many beneficiaries are confused about the plan offerings and 
which plan may suit them best. Moreover, a recent General Accounting 
Office report finds an alarming number of private Part D plans are 
providing inaccurate or incomplete information to Medicare 
beneficiaries about the coverage and benefits provided under the 
various plans.
  No doubt, there are some people who have benefited from this new 
program, but for too many Part D enrollees with complex medical 
conditions, the benefit has largely been a source of great confusion 
and concern. We could have done it differently. We could have done it 
more simply. We could have done it more efficiently.
  Many of the problems we are seeing today could have been averted if 
the Administration had not made the program needlessly complicated and 
if they had done a better job of preparing the public. Despite all of 
the serious shortcomings of Medicare Part D, the program has taken 
effect. It is now incumbent upon us to work together to turn things 
around and improve the situation.
  In an effort to provide some modest short-term relief to seniors, I 
am working with Senators Dorgan and Bingaman on the Prescription 
Fairness Act. This bill has a simple premise: beneficiaries should not 
have to continue paying monthly premiums when they have no drug 
coverage. The bill waives the Medicare Part D premium for any month 
that a senior falls into the doughnut hole. During this time, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services would be responsible for 
offsetting these monthly premium costs. It seems only fair to me. We 
are making seniors pay premiums, yet they do not qualify for the 
benefit. If they don't qualify for the benefit, let's absolve them of 
the premiums until they do, once again, qualify for the coverage.
  There is another aspect of the doughnut hole that needs to be 
addressed. That is the fact that expenditures by other drug subsidiary 
programs do not count against beneficiaries' true out-of-pocket costs--
this is an acronym, TrOOP: true out-of-pocket costs--during this lapse 
in Part D coverage.
  Medicare beneficiaries on fixed incomes should not be penalized for 
seeking assistance from other programs that provide prescription drugs 
or drug assistance.
  Here is the problem: You go into the doughnut hole. You are desperate 
for your prescriptions. The expenditures have to come out of your 
pocket to qualify again. You cannot go to a State agency, perhaps, that 
has a program because that spending will not be counted. I think that 
is another problem we have to address.
  The Helping Fill the Prescription Gap Act--another proposal which I 
have cosponsored--would allow costs incurred by federally qualified 
health centers and patient assistance programs to count toward a 
beneficiary's annual out-of-pocket threshold. If they can get the help, 
qualify for the help, it should be counted, as they try to extricate 
themselves from the doughnut hole.
  While these two bills are designed to help ease the burden of 
Medicare beneficiaries in the doughnut hole, serious structural 
problems of the program must also be addressed.
  ``D'' also stands for--besides ``doughnut hole,'' ``dire 
circumstances''--for the dubious claims the Administration has made 
about the plan's costs and the savings they would deliver for 
consumers.
  The Administration's original cost estimates for the program were 
woefully inaccurate, and the benefit is now expected to top $700 
billion in the first decade--$300 billion more than was originally 
advertised.
  The fundamental premise behind the Medicare Part D benefit--that 
vigorous competition among private insurers would lead to lower drug 
prices--simply has not proven to be true.
  ``D'' also stands for the do-nothing Republican Congress that during 
this year's budget debate failed to pass a Democratic amendment that 
would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to 
negotiate the best deal for Medicare prescription drugs.
  Instead of harnessing the purchasing power of over 40 million 
Medicare beneficiaries, the Administration plan called on private 
insurance plans to administer the program and to negotiate directly 
with the pharmaceutical companies on drug prices.
  Here I think is the structural flaw in this overall program. In order 
to pull together the bargaining power of the largest number of seniors, 
the Government should be able to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical 
companies. The pharmaceutical companies have market power. Many of 
their drugs are patented and cannot be produced by anyone else. They 
can drive the price up.
  The only way in a market you counter that type of monopolistic 
pricing power is by banding together as consumers so you have one 
entity negotiating for the consumers against one entity who controls 
the product. You will get a better price.
  That is what we do in the VA system. The VA system has the legal 
authority to negotiate prices with drug companies. They have thousands 
and thousands of clients in their hospitals and in their outpatient 
settings, and they simply go and say: If you would like to sell us this 
significant volume of drugs, give us your best price. That is the way I 
believe we can get drug prices if not down, at least lower the 
escalation in costs. If we do not rein in price growth, the estimate of 
$700 billion over 10 years, I believe in a year or two, could be even 
higher.

[[Page 18941]]

  Families USA conducted a survey that compared the lowest Part D 
prices with those the Veterans' Administration negotiated for the five 
most commonly prescribed drugs to seniors, and the variation in price 
is staggering. The VA can negotiate on behalf of our Nation's veterans 
while Medicare is barred from doing so--legally barred. It is part of 
this legislation: a rather large benefit to the pharmaceutical 
industry, to the detriment of taxpayers and seniors.
  We can save money, and we can pass these savings on to seniors, we 
hope, but we cannot tie our hands. We have to be able to, as a large 
entity, as Medicare, negotiate these prices.
  I want to work with the President and my colleagues in the Congress 
to strengthen Medicare for the long term. But the Administration has 
failed so far in their approach to Medicare reform.
  Under the current Part D Program, drug companies hold all the cards. 
A recent New York Times article revealed that the shift of dual-
eligible beneficiaries from Medicaid drug coverage over to the Part D 
Program has been a financial boon to drug manufacturers.
  Previously, under Medicaid--a separate program which is a joint 
State-Federal program--seniors could qualify in certain cases for drug 
assistance. In the States, the Medicaid programs were negotiating with 
the pharmaceutical companies for prices. But with the passage of Part 
D, these dual-eligibles were automatically enrolled into the Medicare 
Part D Program. And what happened to drug prices? They zoomed out of 
sight. That, to me, is evidence that we can do much better, not only to 
protect seniors but to protect taxpayers.
  Now, I believe the pharmaceutical companies deserve a fair return on 
their investment. They have invested in drug research and development. 
But allowing them to dictate prices for millions of elderly and 
disabled Medicare beneficiaries is a bad deal for the Federal 
Government and a bad deal for the American public.
  These are just some of problems with Medicare Part D that must be 
addressed.
  And while Part D is receiving most of the attention lately, seniors 
also face a 5.6-percent increase in Part B premiums for doctor visits 
and outpatient services in 2007, which will absorb a disproportionate 
amount of their Social Security cost-of-living adjustments--their 
COLAs. In fact, Part B premiums have almost doubled since President 
Bush took office, so seniors living on fixed incomes will now pay 
almost $1,200 just for these premiums alone.
  This is another example of the growing squeeze, economically, on 
middle-income Americans. When you look at working Americans, young 
Americans with families, you have seen tuition costs go up 
extraordinarily so. You have seen health care costs go up, and many of 
these families do not have the benefits of the Medicare Program at all. 
Their costs are going up significantly. And gasoline prices are high. 
But incomes are not keeping up.
  In fact, in real terms, inflation-adjusted terms, from 2000 to 2005, 
the median income of American families has fallen by $1,300. So you 
have falling income and increasing prices. It is this vice that is 
squeezing middle-income Americans.
  And then, when you go to seniors, they are looking at some relief in 
Medicare Part D, but they are falling in the doughnut hole and finding 
that relief is elusive. They are also finding their Part B premiums 
going up. They are being squeezed hard also.
  Now, through all of this, the Administration has proposed no 
substantive changes to the Medicare Program to help these 
beneficiaries. We have to take action. I hope in this Congress--
although the days are dwindling down to a precious few--but certainly 
in the next Congress we have to start looking seriously at reforming 
Medicare Part D, at making it more affordable for seniors and more 
affordable for taxpayers.
  Let's make the ``D'' stand for what it should stand for: doing right 
by our seniors.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Oil Company Royalty Payments

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, all of us in the Senate know that each of 
the executive branch agencies have an inspector general. Last week, the 
inspector general at the Department of Interior made an extraordinary 
statement about the lack of ethics, in his view, at the Department of 
Interior. I have come to the Chamber this afternoon to discuss that and 
to bring to the Senate's attention some new developments on this issue.
  What the Interior Department's inspector general, Mr. Earl Devaney, 
said last week is essentially that the Department has lost its ethical 
compass, and specifically the inspector general stated:

       Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the 
     highest levels of the Department of Interior.

  Mr. Devaney pointed to a number of instances where he thought the 
Department was essentially defending the indefensible and was 
particularly troubled by the way the Department's royalty efforts--the 
efforts to collect money owed to the Federal Government--were going 
forward.
  This morning, there are new developments on this issue which are 
particularly relevant to the Senate's work for the rest of the session. 
This morning, there was a news account documenting how for some time 
the nonpolitical auditors in the Interior Department have been raising 
concerns about underpayment of millions of dollars of royalties for oil 
and gas leases. What the article says is these auditors, who are 
nonpolitical, professional people, were overruled by their superiors 
when they wanted to go out and aggressively protect the taxpayers of 
this country. Some of these auditors, according to these news reports 
this morning, were so outraged by the Interior Department's failure to 
collect the full amount of royalties that were owed the people that 
they have filed False Claims Act lawsuits against the oil companies for 
defrauding the Government.
  For example, one senior auditor identified an oil company scheme to 
reduce its royalty payments by apparently selling oil it extracted from 
Federal lands at a discount, thereby reducing the amount of royalty it 
paid to the U.S. Treasury. According to the news accounts, the 
superiors in that instance told the auditor not to pursue a collection 
of the oil company's underpayments. So the auditor felt that, to get 
any justice for the taxpayers, he had to go out and file a false claims 
lawsuit against the company responsible. Apparently, after he did that, 
he was subjected to retaliation by Interior Department officials, and 
then he was eventually terminated.
  Several additional false claims lawsuits have recently been unsealed 
as well where, here again, auditors apparently uncovered underpayments 
but were not allowed to pursue collection of the full amounts owed to 
the Government. In each of these cases, the Federal Government declined 
to join the suit to recover on behalf of the taxpayers the money that 
oil companies allegedly were underpaying for their oil and gas leases.
  If this were just one isolated case, you could say that maybe this 
was a person who just had a bad experience and they are angry at this 
point. But when you have a number of cases--a number of cases brought 
by nonpolitical professional people, people who are putting themselves 
at risk by bringing this out--that issue becomes too important for the 
Government to ignore.
  I am bringing it to the attention of the Senate this afternoon 
because it goes to the heart of something I have been talking about for 
many months. In fact, months ago, I spent over 4 hours right in this 
spot trying to blow

[[Page 18942]]

the whistle on the fact that it was time to stop stonewalling on this 
issue of collecting billions and billions of dollars in royalty 
payments that are owed by oil companies that are extracting that oil 
from land owned by the people of this country.
  In this case, the Interior Department's inspector general has 
identified underpayments of just a tiny fraction of what is owed, but 
it seems to me this highlights how serious a problem this is. It also 
undermines the argument of the administration and some supporters of 
the oil industry that this money is going to be collected if the 
Congress just stays out of it and the executive branch goes after it on 
its own. That is one of the reasons that apparently we can't get a vote 
on an effort to collect these royalties here in the Senate, because 
some have said the executive branch is on this case, they are going to 
go after it, and they are going to bring in these dollars. Well, today, 
on the front page of one of the country's newspapers, we are seeing 
that not only is the administration not going after these royalty 
payments, but when independent, professional auditors go out and try to 
collect the money, not only is there no effort to support them, but 
they end up getting rolled when they try to bring these cases and 
collect money that is owed to the taxpayers of this country.
  Under Federal law, oil companies are supposed to pay the Federal 
Government royalties when they extract oil or gas from Federal lands or 
offshore drilling. During the 1990s, to encourage drilling when oil 
prices were low, Congress provided relief to suspend royalty payments 
when prices were below certain threshold levels. It was, however, the 
intent of Congress that royalties would resume when the prices got back 
above those thresholds. But the leases that were signed during 1998 and 
1999 failed to include the price threshold. As a result, a number of 
oil companies have been allowed to extract oil without paying the 
royalties that are owed under these leases, even when the oil prices 
went to record levels, as we saw this past summer.
  The Government Accountability Office has estimated that the failure 
to include price thresholds in just those leases--just the ones I 
mentioned--could cost the Federal Treasury and the taxpayers $10 
billion. What is more--and I think this will be truly eye-opening for 
the Senate and for the country--is that given the fact there is 
litigation pending surrounding this program, the loss to the taxpayers 
could perhaps soar to as much as $80 billion, according to an estimate 
by an industry source.
  That is why I took the time a few months ago to stand on the floor of 
the Senate for well over 4 hours to make the case of reforming the oil 
royalty program, and that is why I have come to the Chamber today to 
bring to the attention of the Senate the concerns that are coming from 
the professional auditors.
  When we debated it, or when I had a chance to raise the concern 
before the Senate on that occasion and others, I heard some saying that 
the Interior Department is going to go out and get these funds, they 
are going to make sure the taxpayers don't get ripped off. We have 
heard that argument advanced time and time again. It essentially has 
been stated that the Interior Department has begun the efforts to 
renegotiate those leases that are costing the $10 billion I mentioned 
and that Congress can only get in the way by trying to take legislative 
action.
  Well, these news reports that have come out this morning make it very 
clear that Interior officials are not willing to address the problems 
with the royalty program on their own. When given the chance to pursue 
the issues raised by nonpolitical auditors working for the Department, 
according to this morning's report and these lawsuits, those high up in 
the Department blocked the auditors' efforts to collect the full amount 
owed to the U.S. Treasury and to taxpayers.
  The Interior Department's negotiations with the oil companies on the 
1998 and 1999 leases didn't even start until after Congress included 
language in the Interior appropriations bills to prevent companies from 
getting new leases unless they renegotiated their old leases to include 
price thresholds. And the mediation process that is now underway 
between the companies and the Interior Department is nonbinding, so the 
companies can walk away at any point. In my view, that is why Congress 
ought to step in now and require the Interior Department to fix the 
royalty program through legislation.
  The companies are doing everything they can to keep this issue from 
coming to a vote on the floor. That is what happened when I stood in 
this spot for more than 4 hours a few months ago. The oil companies 
knew on that occasion that if there was a vote here in the Senate to 
reform this program which is so out of hand--because even our esteemed 
former colleague who is from the State of Louisiana, former Senator 
Bennett Johnston, said the program is out of hand. If we had a vote 
that day, the vote would have been overwhelming to fix the royalty 
program. But we could not get that vote because there were some in the 
Senate who knew that the taxpayers would win, and they didn't want to 
have the vote. Now the session is about to end. The subsidies are going 
to continue. Based on this morning's report, auditors who are 
professional are being overruled by their superiors when they want to 
get those dollars owed to the taxpayers.
  In my view, time is not on the side of those of us who want to put a 
stop to these senseless subsidies. The oil companies and their 
supporters know that the time left in this session is limited, so if 
they can keep the Senate from voting on these royalties, the 
legislation that the House adopted after my discussion in the Senate 
will almost certainly disappear when the Interior bill gets rolled into 
some kind of an end-of-the-session comprehensive bill called, around 
here, omnibus legislation.
  The negotiations now underway with oil companies, that have the most 
generous deals of all, in my view, are going to get dragged out and 
delayed and postponed until the last legislative vehicle leaves town. 
Then the oil companies can walk away from the table, return to claiming 
those needless subsidies, and I assume fewer auditors will step forward 
in the future because they will see that there has not been a Congress 
backing them up.
  We have seen the ``run out the clock scenario'' play out before. It 
happened, for example, on the issue of needless tax breaks to the oil 
companies. I was able to get legislation through the Senate Finance 
Committee to begin the effort to roll back some of the tax breaks that 
the oil companies were getting. These were oil companies getting breaks 
that even they said they didn't need when I asked them questions when 
they came before the Senate Finance Committee. But by the time we were 
done on the tax side, the oil companies had been able to water down 
much of what I had originally gotten out of committee, and they are 
still getting billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks that they 
themselves have testified before the Senate they do not need.
  I believe, on the basis of the news reports that we saw this morning 
and the fact that the inspector general of the Department of Interior 
has said that anything goes with respect to ethics at the Interior 
Department, that this Senate ought to step in and protect the taxpayers 
of this country. This Senate ought to address this problem, which the 
inspector general has called ``indefensible'' and has, in effect, said 
the Department is still trying to defend it. My view is that if the 
Senate ducks this issue, it will be very difficult to explain to the 
American people how Congress can propose to allow additional billions 
of dollars of royalty money to be given away before it puts a stop to 
what already has gone out the door.
  The distinguished Senator from Louisiana and my colleague who is my 
seatmate, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has 
sure made a good case to me about the suffering that folks in New 
Orleans and in her State have endured. But what has been troubling to 
me is how do you make a case for starting a new royalty program, a new 
offshore oil royalty

[[Page 18943]]

program, when you are wasting money on the last one that got out the 
door? So I will continue to try to make the case, force the Senate to 
reform this oil royalty program, and I am going to continue to press 
this every time I think there is a new development in this case.
  I urge my colleagues to read the important article by Mr. Andrews in 
the paper today describing the efforts of these auditors to try to make 
sure taxpayers do not get stiffed.
  It is one thing if one person comes forward. It is another when you 
have a whole pattern of these cases, by people who are nonpolitical, 
who are professional people. We have had a bipartisan effort in the 
Senate to change this. I have been particularly appreciative that 
Senator Kyl, Senator DeWine, and Senator Feinstein have joined me in 
past efforts. But we have not been able to offer that amendment and 
actually get a vote on a bipartisan proposal that would finally clean 
up this program and protect the taxpayers of this country.
  As a result, some of the most profitable companies in the country are 
continuing to get billions and billions of dollars of royalty relief 
and giveaways that are paid for by the taxpayers of this country.
  It was one thing to start that program back in the days when oil was 
$19. It is quite different when you have royalty relief, taking hard-
earned dollars out of the pockets of our citizens when that relief 
clearly is not necessary. I urge colleagues in the Senate, on both 
sides of the aisle, to join me in these efforts to clean up this 
program, stop the outrageous giveaway of taxpayer money, and take a 
good look at this morning's report. The combination of what the 
inspector general has said and what these independent auditors have 
said this morning, in my view, is too important to ignore. The Senate 
ought to step in and make sure the taxpayers' interests in this country 
are protected.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Secure Fence Act. 
The bill before us will certainly do some good. It will authorize some 
badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our 
borders, and that should help stem some of the tide of illegal 
immigration in this country. But if we think that putting up a few more 
miles of fence is by any means the whole answer to our immigration 
problems, then I believe we are seriously kidding ourselves.
  This bill, from my perspective, is an election-year, political 
solution to a real policy challenge that goes far beyond November. It 
is great for sound bites and ad campaigns, but as an answer to the 
problem of illegal immigration, it is unfinished at best.
  Yes, we need tougher border security and stronger enforcement 
measures. Yes, we need more resources for Customs and Border agents and 
more detention beds. Democrats and Republicans in both the House and 
the Senate agree on these points. But immigrants sneaking in through 
unguarded holes in our border are only part of the problem.
  As a host of former Bush immigration officials and Members of 
Congress said in today's Washington Post, we must ``acknowledge that as 
much as half of the illegal-immigration problem is driven by the hiring 
of people who enter the United States through official border points 
but use fraudulent documents or overstay visas.''
  This serves as a reminder that for the last 15 years, our immigration 
strategy has consisted of throwing more money at the border. We have 
tripled the size of the Border Patrol and we strengthened fences. But 
even as investments in border security grew, the size of the 
undocumented population grew as well. So we need to approach the 
immigration challenge from a different perspective.
  This is why for months Democrats and Republicans have been working 
together to pass a comprehensive immigration bill out of this Congress 
because we know that in addition to greater border security, we also 
need greater sanctions on employers who illegally hire people in this 
country. We need to make it easier for those employers to identify who 
is legally eligible to work and who is not. And we need to figure out 
how we plan to deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are 
already here, many of whom have woven themselves into the fabric of our 
communities, many of whom have children who are U.S. citizens, many of 
whom employers depend on. Until we do, no one should be able to look a 
voter in the face and honestly tell them that we have solved our 
immigration problem.
  A model for compromise on this issue is in the Senate bill that was 
passed out of this Chamber. In the new electronic employment 
verification system section of that bill that I helped write with 
Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy, we agreed to postpone the new 
guest worker program until 2 years of funding is made available for 
improved workplace enforcement. We could extend that framework and work 
together to first ensure the money is in place to strengthen 
enforcement at the border and then allow the new guest worker program 
to kick in. We can do all of that in one bill, but we are not.
  So while this bill will probably pass, it should be seen only as one 
step in the much greater challenge of reforming our immigration system. 
Meeting that challenge will require passing measures to discourage 
people from overstaying their visas in the country and to help 
employers check the legal status of the workers applying for jobs.
  It seems it was just yesterday that we were having celebratory press 
conferences and the President and the Senate leadership were promising 
to pass a bill that would secure our borders and take a tough but 
realistic approach to the undocumented immigrants who are already here.
  Today that promise looks empty and that cooperation seems like a 
thing of the past. But we owe it to the American people to finish the 
job we are starting today. And we owe it to all those immigrants who 
have come to this country with nothing more than a willingness to work 
and a hope for a better life. Like so many of our own parents and 
grandparents, they have shown the courage to leave their homes and seek 
out a new destiny of their own making. The least we can do is show the 
courage to help them make that destiny a reality in a way that is safe, 
legal, and achievable. So when we actually start debating this bill, I 
hope the majority leader will permit consideration of a wide range of 
amendments.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending 
legislation, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I want to address this 
issue. I have worked on the immigration issue all this year. It has 
been a very difficult issue. It has been a very difficult discussion. 
It has been one that has involved a great deal of the time of this 
body.
  I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We worked a long time to 
try to come up with some form of comprehensive legislation that we put 
forward. It was far from perfect, even as it was passed. Before it 
passed, people were questioning this provision and that provision. You 
look back on it and say: Well, I think that is a good question, and I 
think that is a good point, and it is something we need to deal with in 
conference to be able to address those concerns and topics.
  I think we could have come out with a good conference bill, but the 
volatility of the subject, the lateness in the

[[Page 18944]]

session, the closeness to the elections really has just not made it 
possible for us to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform, as 
the President has requested, as most people in the country look at it 
and believe in some form we need to deal with immigration in a broad 
fashion.
  Yet almost everybody I have talked with on the immigration issue--a 
number of whom are passionately involved in the topic--virtually 
everybody who looks at it will say: OK, let's first get the border 
secure. First, let's stop the flow of illegal immigration into the 
United States, and then let's talk about comprehensive reform or you 
get a number of people saying: I don't think you are serious at the 
Government level of dealing with securing the border. When you show me 
that, then let's move forward with comprehensive reform because I do 
recognize we have 11 to 12 million people here in an undocumented 
status. We do have a need for workers in a number of places across the 
United States, that there are legitimate concerns, and the best way for 
us to move forward is in some fashion dealing with all the problems 
that are associated with this issue.
  We have a history in the United States, in the last 20 years, of 
dealing with this problem on a piecemeal basis. In 1986, there was an 
amnesty bill, but it did not deal with border enforcement at that point 
in time. That did not work. In 1996, we had an enforcement-only bill, 
but it did not deal with the future flow or did not deal with the 
people who were here in an undocumented status at that point in time. 
We come, then, to 2006.
  It is an interesting progression in the numbers as well. In 1986, we 
had roughly 3 million here in an undocumented, illegal status. In 1996, 
10 years later, we had 7 million here in an illegal, undocumented 
status. We tried amnesty. We tried enforcement in 1996, and we had 7 
million who were in an undocumented, illegal status in the United 
States.
  In 2006, we are at 11 million to 12 million. So we have tried this on 
a piecemeal basis before, and it just has not worked. Whether you come 
from either side of the argument, it has not worked on a piecemeal 
basis. What I am hopeful we can do in passing this legislation--in the 
secure fence area; and I do support this legislation--is that we can 
deal with the precursors that a number of people have identified, 
saying, first, we really need to secure the border and show the country 
we are serious about securing the border. Then let's move forward with 
the comprehensive legislation.
  What this, I hope, will be is the first step in dealing, in a 
comprehensive, long-term fashion, with our failed immigration system 
and huge immigration problem. We need to do this, and we need to do 
this first.
  I was hopeful we could do this in one whole package and move it on 
forward and see the practicality of that whole package, that the first 
thing you would do is to secure the border--and the President has 
already dispatched National Guard troops to the border. The border 
enforcement efforts have already stepped up and they are showing fruit 
from their efforts. We are stepping up and doing this now.
  I was hopeful we could do this as a comprehensive piece of 
legislation, recognizing the practicality that, first, the border would 
be secure because that is the thing you could do first, and then you 
could deal with a future flow guest worker program that would take you 
several years to implement. And you could deal with those who are here 
and in an undocumented status? That would take some period of time to 
deal with as well.
  We are not going to be able to, this legislative session, get that 
broad piece of legislation through. Yet I think this shows to people in 
the country deeply concerned about our border--as I am, as we all are 
in the Congress and in this country--is that we are serious about 
dealing with this issue. And I think there will still remain the 
political impetus to deal with this on a broad-scale basis, but first 
we step up and do first things first and we secure the border and we 
show to the country we are, indeed, serious about securing the border, 
and we are doing everything we can to secure the border.
  It will not permanently seal the border. This effort, the Secure 
Fence Act of 2006, will not achieve that. It is going to be very 
difficult to completely secure the border, but this bill will take a 
strong step forward for us.
  I also say to my colleagues who believe we should just do enforcement 
or we should do enforcement first, that we then, in the future, need to 
take the next steps necessary to deal with this in a comprehensive 
fashion.
  I think it is going to be very important that, OK, yes, we do this, 
and we move this forward, but then we need to move forward with the 
rest of it. What do we do with those who are here in an undocumented 
status? How do we do more on interior enforcement at work sites? What 
do we do on a guest worker future flow program? So that we will deal 
with this in a totality, so that as to those who are concerned we are 
just going to do this and not deal with the rest of the system, we can 
say: No, part of what we are talking about and doing is securing the 
border first. We do that we are going to hold true to what we said. 
Yes, we do that. And, then, let's talk about how we can move forward in 
the comprehensive fashion because that is the way--and the only way--I 
think you actually deal in some sort of long-term fashion with the very 
real problems we are facing and that really a number of countries 
around the world are facing--certainly the Europeans are facing--in a 
major fashion.
  It seems to me that one of the things that happened after the fall of 
the Berlin Wall, in particular--some time before but certainly after--
was people started moving to opportunity. They started moving to where 
they felt they could have a better life for themselves and their 
families. It is certainly an impetus I recognize, and it is hard to 
fault people for that. You want it to be conducted in a legal fashion 
and to see that national sovereignty rules are obeyed.
  People in this country who talk about security first, when they talk 
with me about that, they are not against immigration. They want it to 
be legal. They want the system to be a legal system, and then we can 
work with it. But they don't want an illegal system that has devolved 
or, as we have seen, broken down in this country.
  I think this is an important first step forward for us in dealing 
with this problem in a comprehensive fashion. It is not what a number 
of us had worked for in getting a comprehensive bill. I think it is the 
first step in us getting comprehensive legislation moving forward and 
convincing the country that we are serious about securing the borders 
so that we can do comprehensive reform of an immigration system that is 
so desperately needed.
  Mr. President, I have worked a long time and for a number of years on 
human rights issues and dignity of the individual, and I believe 
fundamentally in my bones about this. I believe it is important and it 
is a big statement, what a country does in taking care of the least of 
us, including the widows and orphans. In those statements, it also says 
that the foreign are amongst you, citing those who are in a difficult 
situation. They are in a hard situation. We need to help them and work 
with them in any way we can. We need to be able to craft a legal 
solution to do that. I think it is important. It is also a statement of 
the nature of our society and our Nation that we do that. We need to 
reach out to those in the most difficult circumstances in this country. 
This is a step forward, but it is not and cannot be the final step.
  I remind the individuals who have pushed this route forward that we 
are taking you at your word as well, saying first secure the border and 
then we go to comprehensive reform. We are going your path. This would 
be the path that you said is the way to go. We cannot just stop here 
and say: OK, we have done that, and now we are not going to talk about 
the rest of the issues. We need to see this on through to what people 
had said was the right route to go--first securing the border and then 
dealing with the rest of it. We are going that path, your path, 
forward.
  I hope we can move this through and then continue the discussion on 
how we

[[Page 18945]]

move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. I believe it is 
critical for us to do that for the future of the Republic.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES

                    Army Staff Sergeant Sean Landrus

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a fellow Ohioan, 
a young man who lost his life in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Army SSG Sean 
Landrus died on January 29, 2004, of wounds he suffered when a roadside 
bomb exploded next to his convoy in Iraq. He was 31 years old.
  Sean Landrus will be remembered for many things and in many ways. He 
was an exceptional soldier who enjoyed and took pride in military life. 
More than that, he was a loving son, brother, husband, and father, a 
man who was completely dedicated to his family.
  Sean was born in January of 1973 in Painesville, OH, to loving 
parents Ken and Betty Landrus. The youngest of six children, Sean was 
very close to his entire family and remained so throughout his life. 
Sean attended Ledgemont High School where he excelled in football, 
basketball, and track. A highly competitive athlete, Sean hated to be 
taken out of any game, even if he was injured. According to his mother 
Betty:

       One of the managers said that he just didn't play the same 
     without Sean because he was the spark plug.

  Sean carried that dedication and competitive spirit with him 
throughout all that he did. After graduating in 1991, Sean attended 
Kent State University while working for C&K Industrial Service, an 
industrial cleaning company in Cleveland. Although she didn't enjoy it 
at the time, Betty now fondly recalls how grubby her son would be when 
he got home from work. Despite the dirt, she loved her ``iron teddy 
bear.''
  On December 2, 1995, Sean married his high school sweetheart Chris, 
and they made their home in Thompson Township. Sean reported for boot 
camp just 1 month later. He was assigned to Company B, First Engineer 
Battalion, First Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division. Sean 
spent 8 years in the Army, including deployments to Bosnia and Kuwait.
  Sean was a devoted family man who found it difficult to leave his 
wife Chris, his son Kenneth, and daughters Khrista and Kennedy for his 
overseas tours. He was very sorry to be away from them for that period 
of time. His deployment to Iraq was particularly emotional. Kennedy was 
then just a few weeks old. At the time, Sean and his family were living 
in Fort Riley in Kansas. Sean was offered a desk job at the base, but 
he declined it in favor of going to a combat zone.
  In the words of his mother Betty, ``Sean just hated being behind a 
desk.''
  In September 2003, Ken and Betty drove to Fort Riley both to meet 
their new granddaughter and to say good-bye to their son before he left 
for Iraq. Because Sean was busy making preparations for deployment, 
they weren't able to see him very often. But for Sean, it was important 
that he made sure everything for which he was responsible was in the 
right order. That is simply the kind of man he was. Betty and Ken woke 
up very early and stayed up very late to spend as much time with him as 
possible. Sean found it difficult to leave his family again, and as he 
said in his own words, ``It is my job.''
  Sean's deployment to Iraq would have been his last. Before going 
overseas, he told his family that it would be the final time he went 
away. He just didn't want to leave them anymore. Unfortunately, Sean's 
convoy was ambushed after a roadside bomb exploded next to the truck he 
was in. Two days later, he passed away from his injuries.
  Mr. President and Members of the Senate, that day our Nation lost a 
great soldier. The Landrus family lost a loving brother, son, husband, 
and father. Perhaps most heartbreaking, Sean was never able to hear his 
youngest daughter's first words: ``Da Da.''
  As Ohioans have done so often in the past, the members of Sean's 
community rallied around the Landrus family to offer their support. 
During Sean's final trip home to the Cleveland area, color guards from 
the area's veterans posts lined the processional route. Others wishing 
to pay their respects gathered in freezing temperatures to wave 
American flags, and nearly 400 people crowded into St. Patrick Catholic 
Church to celebrate Sean's life. County flags were flown at half-staff 
and a resolution honoring Sean was passed at the Thompson Township 
trustee meeting. His death was a loss felt by the entire community.
  SSG Sean Landrus was a great man. I know he will live on in the 
hearts and minds of all those who were privileged to have known him. My 
wife Fran and I continue to keep the Landrus family in our thoughts and 
prayers.


                      MARINE CORPORAL BRAD SQUIRES

  Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Marine Cpl Brad 
Squires, a fellow Ohioan from Middleburg Heights, who lost his life on 
June 9, 2005, as a result of an explosion that occurred during combat 
operations. He was assigned to Marine Forces Reserve's 3rd Battalion, 
25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division, from Akron, OH. Brad was the 
son of Donna and Bruce Squires, husband of Julie, brother of Chad and 
Jodie, and uncle of Chad, Cassidy, and Alexis. He was only 26 years old 
at the time of his death.
  Brad graduated from Berea High School in 1997, where he played on the 
football team. He was studying to be a firefighter and was taking 
classes at Lorain Community College. He was also an aspiring 
supermodified driver who entered his first race in 2004 with the 
Midwest Supermodified Association. Brad joined the Marines in 1999, and 
in February 2005 he was sent to the Al Anbar province in Iraq, where he 
served 4 months with his battalion before his death.
  Brad Squires was loved by everyone who knew him. Again and again, I 
have read about what a good friend he was. He was always looking for 
ways to make his friends and family smile, and was constantly seeking 
new adventures. Brad's aunt, Donna Dirk, described him as ``fun-loving, 
very family-oriented, and really a nice kid.''
  Katie Gorton remembers Brad's wonderful personality. She made the 
following comments after attending his wake:

       Brad certainly is a ``hometown hero,'' but more 
     importantly, an American Hero . . . all of us there that 
     night looked at pictures and remembered his mischievous grin, 
     his contagious laugh, and his charismatic personality. We 
     were able to remember Brad the friend, Brad the cousin, Brad 
     the funny guy from math class, Brad the guy the underclass 
     girls had a crush on, Brad the son, etc. . . . and for some 
     of us, it was the first chance we had to meet and remember 
     another side of him . . . Brad the Marine. I'd like to think 
     that he knows how many lives he's touched now, and is able to 
     be with us all now through miracles.

  Brad had a strong sense of duty to family and friends from childhood, 
always wanting to help protect others from harm. As a young boy, he 
knew the difference between right and wrong. Middleburg Heights' mayor 
recalls what must have been a very special day for the young Brad. ``I 
probably handed Brad Squires his safety town certificate when he was 
five,'' he said. And Jessica Sutherland of Lakewood remembered a time 
when Brad rescued her from the bullying of a bigger boy. According to 
Jessica, for years afterwards Brad would blush when she thanked him for 
the day. She writes:

       For that small good deed, he's always been a hero to me, so 
     I'm not surprised he died a hero . . . God bless Brad 
     Squires.

  Kelli Kusky echoed these remarks about Brad's selfless nature. She 
said:

       . . . He was always helping people; I remember the time 
     that his neighbor had a heart attack and Brad kicked in his 
     air conditioner and saved the man's life. He made no big deal 
     out of it, just said that he knew what he had to do. And I 
     know that Brad did what he knew he had to do in Iraq. I don't 
     think he would of had it any other way . . . He meant A LOT 
     to a lot of people and left long lasting impressions on 
     everyone that he met!


[[Page 18946]]


  Clearly Brad was a hero to many throughout his life. And he did 
indeed love his Marine Corps. According to his wife, Julie, ``Brad 
loved his Marine Corps and would jump at a chance to tell everyone 
about it.'' Nate Ickes of Akron also commented on Brad's military 
service. He said:

       My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone that knew and 
     loved Corporal Brad Squires. I am so proud to have served 
     with him and he will be missed very much. Brad had a way to 
     make everyone laugh, even if there was nothing to laugh 
     about. He was a fine Marine that any one of us from Weapons 
     Company would have been honored to work with. Brad was a man 
     who would never let you down, nor would he stop until the job 
     was done! Corporal Brad Squires will be forever missed but 
     never forgotten. Brad will always be a brother, friend and 
     Marine of Weapons Company 3/25. . . .

  Brad deeply loved his family, and was deeply loved by them. He 
married his wife Julie in November 2004. They had to move up the 
wedding date when Brad learned that he would be deployed in January. 
Sadly, their family and friends would return to the same church 7 
months later for Brad's funeral. Brad was looking forward to starting a 
life with his new bride and spending time with the rest of his family.
  Brad's sister Jodie wrote these words to Brad:

       My brother, my friend, my hero that will never be 
     forgotten. I love and miss you so much, Brad--26 years of 
     great memories is what I hold close to my heart. On behalf of 
     the family, I would like to thank everyone for their support.

  Brad's brother Chad echoed these sentiments, saying:

       My brother Brad is a hero, he died for what every American 
     enjoys in life--their freedom.

  Brad will also be deeply missed by the numerous community members who 
knew and loved him. Numerous mourners attended his memorial service at 
St. Mary's Catholic Church, where he and Julie had been married 7 
months earlier. More than 120 motorcycles and 200 cars participated in 
the procession to the cemetery, while hundreds of people with flags 
watched them pass. Tim Ali, a family friend, aptly expressed a fitting 
sentiment: ``We have him home.''
  In honor of their brother, Brad's siblings Chad and Jodie have 
started a memorial fund to carry on his legacy. Donations to the 
Corporal Brad Squires Memorial Fund will help build and preserve a 
memorial on Old Oak Boulevard in Middleburg Heights, dedicated to all 
the men and women in Ohio who have given their lives to protecting our 
freedom. You can learn more about this memorial by accessing the Web 
site at www.bradsquires.net.
  I would like to end by including a message that Donna left for her 
son one year after his death:

       Brad, not a day goes by that you're not in our thoughts and 
     prayers and how we wish you could be here and how we wish we 
     could see you again. When I think of you I think of your love 
     for life and your beautiful smile. You always had a mystical 
     way of brightening up someone's darkest day. We experienced 
     life together, through good and bad times. I know we will be 
     together in eternity and you are in a better place but we all 
     miss you deeply. I pray to God that He will comfort us and 
     give us all strength. Until we're together again, have a 
     great time in heaven. . . .

  The overriding theme of Brad Squires' legacy is the number of lives 
he touched while he was on this earth. So many people have remarked how 
Brad had positively impacted them. With his death, we have lost a great 
man. Brad loved his family, loved his country, and loved his commitment 
to the Marine Corps. He will never be forgotten. My wife Fran and I 
continue to keep the family and friends of Cpl Brad Squires in our 
thoughts and prayers.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as I have often reminded my colleagues, 
New York State is an agricultural State. We are home to 36,000 farms, 
and our farmers are world-class producers of dairy products, apples, 
grapes, honey, maple syrup, great wines, and other fruits and 
vegetables. New York is truly a land of milk and honey--and so much 
more. Agriculture contributes almost $4 billion to New York's economy. 
More than 1.2 million people work on farms or in farm-related jobs.
  But farmers in New York who are contributing so much to our economy 
and way of life--in a plight shared by the agricultural industry across 
the country--face an incredible challenge to maintain a workforce that 
does the difficult job of harvesting crops and bringing our State's 
bounty to the marketplace.
  That is why I continue to fight for a solution. And as we consider 
the Craig and Feinstein amendments, I hope we can keep these farmers--
many of whom I have met and worked closely with these past 6 years--in 
our focus and put the politics and partisanship aside. There are those 
in this Chamber who have strong disagreements over how to pursue 
comprehensive immigration reform. But I hope that these proposals to 
stand by our family farmers and agricultural industry, both struggling 
to find labor, are not held hostage to the larger debate.
  Our farmers have long desired a legal, stable workforce and have been 
calling for reform. But now they face the prospect of crops dying in 
the field or on the vine--or worse, their farms going out of business 
because of a shortage of workers. We have had the best apple crop in 
years in New York, but the lack of labor has left apples unpicked on 
the trees. We are in the midst of the harvest season in New York State, 
and the 36,000 farm families face the real risk--this year--of losing 
their livelihoods if we cannot ensure a legal, stable workforce for 
them. In fact, according to the Farm Bureau, New York's agricultural 
industry stands to lose $289 million with fruit and vegetable growers 
estimated to lose more than $100 million without solving this problem.
  Farmers have shared with me their stories. Many feel abandoned to 
election-year politics, partisan wrangling, and a Government that does 
not recognize their hardship. Our farmers' crops are dying in the 
fields. We cannot allow a real solution to die on the vine.
  In recent meetings with scores of New York farmers from across the 
State, it was stressed to me that the current worker program in place--
the H-2A legal guest worker program is antiquated, unworkable, and 
woefully inadequate. Couple this with the recent increases in 
enforcement by the Social Security Administration and the Bureau of 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the result has been major 
disruptions to our farms.
  I join with many of my colleagues in this Chamber who believe that 
workplace enforcement is imperative. But as we all know, our current 
laws are broken, and enforcement has been inadequate and haphazard at 
best. We know this because we have been debating reforms for months, 
some of us for years. These increases in enforcement have left our 
farmers reeling. Day to day, they do not know whether their labor force 
will show up for work, whether their workers have been apprehended by 
Immigration and Custom Enforcement or whether they have simply fled the 
area out of fear of apprehension. Whatever the cause, the result is our 
farms are being paralyzed.
  It is worth noting that the farmers I have spoken with are trying in 
good faith to obey the law. They get labor referrals from the New York 
State Department of Labor. They inspect work documents to ensure that 
they have a legal workforce. Our farmers are on the losing end of a 
broken system, and it is up to us to fix it.
  For several years, a broad, bipartisan coalition of Senators has 
advocated for passage of the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, 
and Security Act, AgJOBS, and other legislative reforms that would 
provide our farmers with the long overdue relief they need to maintain 
a workforce.
  The AgJOBS bill would not only expand the current H-2A program, it 
would also modernize and streamline its procedures, making it easier 
for our farmers to use. AgJOBS would also provide agricultural 
employers with a stable labor supply by giving many undocumented 
agricultural workers the chance to earn the right to become legal 
immigrants.
  The AgJOBS compromise was reached after years of negotiations, and it 
represents a unique agreement between farmworker labor unions and

[[Page 18947]]

agricultural employers. It has the support of a broad coalition of 
organizations, including major business trade associations, Latino 
community leaders, civil rights organizations, and religious groups.
  Moreover, AgJOBS will promote our security by helping our Government 
identify persons inside the United States who are here without 
authorization. By encouraging farm workers to come out of the shadows, 
we can stand by family farms while refocusing our limited resources on 
real threats to our security.
  I applaud the leadership of Senators Craig, Kennedy, Feinstein, and 
Boxer on this issue. I support the Craig and Feinstein amendments to 
this bill because we share a belief that we can tackle this crisis.
  We are in this Chamber debating amendments that will serve our farm 
economy and serve to make our immigration system fairer and more 
workable. What I hope is that we can put politics aside and have a 
vote, up or down, yes or no. We owe it to our farmers, workers, and 
consumers to pass a bill that will help save our farms and agricultural 
industry.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with so many important questions facing 
this Senate, and so little time left before we adjourn before the fall 
elections, I am dismayed that we are considering this so-called Secure 
Fence Act.
  I say this as a supporter of the bipartisan comprehensive immigration 
reform we passed in May.
  I say this as one of many who followed the leadership of Senators 
Frist and Reid, Specter and Leahy, McCain and Kennedy, when 62 Senators 
voted for true reform legislation.
  And now look where we are. After a great success, the Senate is now 
considering abandoning that truly comprehensive and bipartisan solution 
to a festering national problem and replacing it with an incomplete, 
ineffective response to our broken immigration system.
  How did we come to such a low point this fall, after such promise 
this spring? I will tell you how. The opponents of reform obstructed 
and delayed. They refused to enter into a conference--even to discuss 
the possibility of reconciling House and Senate legislation.
  Instead we watched the opponents of reform roll out a farcical road 
show of hearings designed to distort the facts, confuse the issues and 
roil the waters to create a national anxiety that need not exist.
  With that out of the way, these same obstructionists have now 
reintroduced large portions of the punitive and ineffective House 
legislation the Senate already rejected earlier this year. Without 
deliberation or debate they are attempting to add their measures onto 
appropriations legislation already in conference--contradicting the 
views of a majority of Senators.
  One of those measures sent from the House is this legislation to 
build fences across specific sections of our southern border. The cost 
of these fences is conservatively estimated at $2.2 billion but could 
easily double. And for this price America will be no more secure, its 
borders no more protected, and illegal immigration still out of 
control.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee, I am more focused on protecting Americans from harm 
than I am on any other issue. Effective border security is a vital 
national priority--not just to stop the flow of illegal immigration 
into this country, but also to keep terrorists and criminals from 
entering the U.S. through our airports and seaports, and across our 
land borders. We will continue to push for better border security, but 
this is not the way to do it.
  The money spent on this bill could be used in much more effective 
ways to bolster our borders and strengthen our security. In fact, 
Congress has already significantly expanded funding for border 
security--for Border Patrol officers, detention beds, and new equipment 
and technology.
  This year the Senate already provided the Department with funds to 
build sections of fence where it makes a difference--in heavily 
populated areas. But an additional few hundred miles of fence along 
small portions of our vast desert border will do virtually nothing to 
stop illegal immigration.
  Building a few more sections of fence and saying we have solved the 
problem of illegal immigration doesn't make sense.
  The President said it himself in a speech days before the Senate 
passed its immigration bill in May.
  He said:

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

  That is what the Senate did. And we are on the verge of losing this 
historic opportunity to address this border challenge the American 
people expect us to fix.
  Let's remind ourselves of what is contained in the Senate's 
immigration bill--and let's be proud of our work.
  The Senate legislation authorized extensive enhancements of border 
security and immigration enforcement--many more Border Patrol officers, 
immigration agents, detention beds, new technologies, and new legal 
authorities.
  The Senate bill cracks down on unscrupulous employers who would hire 
and exploit undocumented workers, by creating verification systems that 
would leave those employers no excuse for hiring the undocumented and 
punish them if they do.
  But what made the Senate bill so forward looking was our bipartisan 
decision that an enforcement-only bill would not solve the problem of 
illegal immigration.
  To control future immigration, we also created a guest worker program 
that will channel future immigrants into legal avenues, where they will 
be screened to make sure they pose no threat to public safety and will 
not take jobs from American workers.
  And for immigration reform to work we had to squarely face the fact 
that there are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants already 
working in the United States. Many have lived here for years and have 
children who were born in this country and are American citizens.
  We wisely decided that criminalizing these 11 million people was not 
going to happen. We couldn't jail that many people. We couldn't deport 
that many people.
  We knew that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants living in 
this country came here to work hard, support their families, pay their 
taxes and obey the law.
  Those are the kind of people we want here.
  Yes, they are here illegally and that can't be treated lightly. And 
we didn't. The Senate bill does not offer amnesty or a free pass to 
anyone. If you want to stay here, you have to earn it.
  Under the comprehensive, bipartisan Senate bill, undocumented 
immigrants who have been present in the U.S. for at least 5 years would 
be able to apply for a work visa lasting 6 years. They would also pay 
thousands of dollars in fines, clear background checks, and must remain 
gainfully employed and lawabiding.
  They would go to the back of the line behind those already waiting 
for their applications to be judged.
  After 6 years of working in the U.S. on a temporary visa, an 
immigrant could apply for permanent residency--a process that takes 5 
years--provided he or she paid an additional fee, proved payment of 
taxes and could show knowledge of English and United States civics.
  Only after a combined period of 11 years could the immigrant apply 
for U.S. citizenship.
  Those who have been here betwee 2 to 5 years would have to apply 
through a stricter guest worker program, and would have to wait even 
longer before they could win legal residency.
  We should have rolled up our sleeves long ago to pass realistic and 
compassionate immigration reform. And the Senate finally has. But the 
House has shirked its responsibilities with its enforcement-only focus.
  Now, instead of doing our constitutional duty and hammering out our 
differences, cogressional leadership has declared that reform is dead 
for this

[[Page 18948]]

year and instead says the best we can do is build fences in the desert 
and create a mirage of security.
  This is not sensible or right. But we must not give up. We must 
fight--and I will continue to fight--for true reform.
  We must do the job the American people sent us here to do--solve the 
tough problems without falling into divisive, partisan posturing.
  That is why I hope and expect that we will be allowed to offer true 
immigration reform amendments to this bill. If we are not allowed to 
offer immigration reform amendments, I will oppose cloture on this 
bill, and I hope all my colleagues who support reform will do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the pending bill 
before S. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This bill, which was 
approved the House of Representatives last week, would require the 
Department of Homeland Security to build a 700-mile wall on the United 
States-Mexican border.
  The bill goes further. The bill also provides that we shall start a 
study as to whether to build a similar wall on our borders with Canada. 
That, of course, is a much longer border and a challenge which has not 
really been thought through. The northern border study is part of the 
bill, along with this new 700-mile wall, or fence, being discussed.
  Earlier this year, the Senate spent the better part of 3 months 
debating immigration. The process began in the Judiciary Committee, on 
which I serve, in early May. We had a series of substantive debates in 
which we considered dozens of amendments, including several maritime 
committee meetings on very contentious issues. At the end of the 
process, we approved a tough, comprehensive bill with a strong 
bipartisan vote. There was a similar process on the floor of the 
Senate.
  We debated the immigration bill for 1 month. We had over 30 rollcall 
votes on amendments. It is rare for Congress to devote that much time 
and energy to one bill. I think that was reflected in the bipartisan 
bill that we approved. It is far from perfect. It was a compromise. 
There are sections in that bill I don't support. I voted for it because 
I thought it was the best effort we could make at that moment to move 
this process forward.
  The Senate bill takes a comprehensive approach that is tuff but fair.
  First, we deal with enforcement by improving our border security by 
increasing manpower and increasing new technology and devising new 
means to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into America. We would 
crack down, as well, on employers.
  Understand that the magnet which draws those who illegally immigrate 
to the United States is the opportunity for a better life through work. 
For most of these people, they come here to take jobs all across our 
country. I have seen them in my home State of Illinois and Chicago. It 
is hard to visit a restaurant or hotel without seeing many people there 
who are working very hard for long hours at low pay, and many of them 
are undocumented.
  We believe that if you are really going to have enforcement work, it 
isn't just a matter of stopping them at the border; it is a matter of 
drying up the magnet that draws them: the employment, those who would 
employ undocumented people. Our bill speaks to that.
  The President has said that he supports this concept. I agree with 
him. We need a tamper-proof ID so that those presenting themselves for 
employment are clearly identified. Currently, a person shows up with a 
name, a phony Social Security number, and goes to work. That day has to 
end.
  If you are talking about enforcement, it is not just a matter of what 
happens on that border--it is a matter of what happens in the workplace 
in New York, in Chicago, in Los Angeles, and all across America.
  This bill which was sent to us by the House does not address the 
employer sanctions. We know what has happened under the Bush 
administration. It is rare if ever that an employer is held accountable 
for hiring illegal aliens. Unless and until we can engage the 
employment issue with the border security issue, we are going to have a 
difficult time controlling the flow of illegal immigration.
  This bill talks about a fence. It is not the first time it has been 
brought up. In the comprehensive immigration bill which we passed, 
there was a provision for constructing a 370-mile, triple-layered fence 
and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border. I 
question whether this is going to work. I have my doubts.
  Consider just the obvious. Our southern border is more than 2,000 
miles long, and we are building 700 miles of fencing or barriers. I 
have to say that leaves a lot of area uncovered. I guess it is not a 
leap of imagination to believe that people will find a way to go around 
this wall, around this fence, or under it. It is going to happen. I 
think to place all of our confidence in this sort of basic barrier may 
go too far.
  But the provision was in our bill. It was an enforcement provision 
for the border which included 370 miles of tripled-layered fence and 
500 miles of vehicle barriers.
  Then, on August 2, the Senate appropriated the money to build it, 
$1.8 billion for fencing and barriers authorized by the Senate bill. 
The measure was approved on a strong bipartisan vote of 94 to 3.
  Despite my scepticism about the fence, my belief was that this moves 
us forward. If this fence moves us forward in the debate about 
comprehensive immigration, I am going to join in that effort even 
though I start with scepticism about whether this is really going to do 
everything we are told.
  So we are dealing with a fence and barrier that has already been 
authorized and funds have been appropriated by the Senate. Instead of 
going to conference with the House and Senate and sitting down and 
working out their differences between the two bills, the House of 
Representatives held hearings around the United States, hearings which 
were designed, I am afraid, to move this issue to the public forefront 
in not a very positive way; in some respects, a very negative way. In 
that effort, they came up with the inspiration for a new bill. In other 
words, they walked away from their earlier bill which dealt with 
immigration enforcement in very harsh terms, saying that those who were 
here illegally would be deemed felons, aggravated felons under Federal 
law, and anyone who helped them would also been charged with the crime.
  Now they are off on a new approach--this so-called 700-mile fence 
approach. It is hard to keep track of what is going on in the House of 
Representatives when it comes to immigration. It changes almost on 
daily or weekly bases.
  Before they will consider sitting down with the Senate and working 
out an agreement on a bill, they send us a new bill.
  That is what has happened here. I wonder why at a time when we are 
facing so many serious issues in this country we are engaged in such 
political posturing when it comes to an issue of this importance.
  Wouldn't it have been better for us to spend this week, instead of 
wasting and burning off the hours on the secure fence bill--the second 
House immigration bill--focus on a national energy policy, talk about 
ways that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that Americans 
can have some security knowing that this economy will grow with good, 
reliable energy sources, and that we would not be subsidizing those who 
send oil to the United States and then turn around and use the hundreds 
of millions of dollars we send to finance our enemies and terrorism?
  This is not really about immigration. It is about something else. 
This is about an effort by the Republican leadership to find just the 
right issue for an election that is just a few weeks away.
  This morning, the New York Times tells us that the American people,

[[Page 18949]]

when asked, have a new low opinion of Congress. It has been 12 years or 
more since so few people had a positive view of their Congress. This 
morning, they reported that 25 percent of the American people have 
positive feelings about the Congress. When asked why, they said 
Congress is dominated by special interests; it is dominated by an 
agenda that has no importance to the lives of most American people; and 
it seems like all they are doing is political posturing for the next 
campaign.
  Many of those criticisms are sadly true.
  This bill has been tied up for the last week and fits right into the 
category of political posturing.
  The earlier immigration bill of the Republican-controlled House of 
Representatives, which would have made felons out of many hard-working 
people and would also have made felons out of many nurses and social 
workers and clergymen who were trying to help those who are here 
undocumented--that bill has been abandoned. Now they are trying to find 
a new bill, a new wedge issue for the November 7 election.
  I believe we need stronger enforcement, but we need to be smart in 
the way we do it.
  Let me give you some numbers which will give you an indication of 
what a smart approach might include.
  In the last decade, we have doubled the number of Border Patrol 
agents that are at our southern border and other borders where people 
might cross, and they have spent eight times as many hours patrolling 
the border in the last 10 years and an 800-percent increase in the 
manhours spent patrolling our borders.
  During the same period of time that this dramatic increase in 
manpower at the border has occurred, the number of undocumented 
immigrants coming into the United States has doubled.
  As Attorney General Gonzales recently noted, ``Some believe we should 
be focusing solely on border security.'' He said, ``I don't think you 
can have true security without taking into account the 11 to 12 million 
who are already here.'' We need to know who they are . . . and take 
them out of the shadows.
  Our bill, our comprehensive bill, sought to deal with this 
immigration issue in a sensible, smart, tough approach that will deal 
with enforcement as well as dealing with the reality of those who are 
here.
  Now the House of Representatives, under the control of the 
President's party, has refused to sit down with the Senate and 
negotiate in a conference committee. They apparently prefer tough talk 
to solutions.
  Now we have a 700-mile wall that is now being proposed. It keeps 
going up in the bidding from 300 to 700. Who knows what the next bill 
will be in preparation for this next election? That is what the bidding 
war is all about--who can come up with the longest wall.
  If we want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, we have to 
secure our border, strengthen enforcement of our immigration laws, and 
address the situation of approximately 12 million undocumented people 
in our country. That is a comprehensive approach.
  I hope we will have a chance, though I am doubtful, to offer 
amendments to this bill. It would be good to return to some of the 
elements of the earlier bill which had widespread support. Sixty-four 
Senators voted for the bill, the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive 
immigration bill. I was one of them. We believe this was a good, 
bipartisan effort to deal with a very tough problem. We need that kind 
of comprehensive approach.
  That bill included a provision which I will offer as an amendment to 
this bill, if given an opportunity. It is called the DREAM Act. This is 
a narrowly tailored, bipartisan measure I have introduced with Senators 
Hagel and Lugar, both Republican colleagues, who have joined me and 
many Democratic Senators in this bipartisan effort. This gives 
undocumented students the chance to become permanent residents if they 
came here as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral 
character, no criminal record, will attend college or enlist in the 
military for at least 2 years.
  Currently, our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people 
from pursuing their dreams and fully contributing to the Nation's 
future. They are honor roll students, star athletes, talented artists, 
valedictorians, aspiring teachers, doctors, scientists, and engineers. 
These young people have lived in this country for most of their lives. 
Their parents brought them here. It is the only home they know. They 
are assimilated and acculturated into American society. They are 
American in every sense of the word except for their technical legal 
status.
  They have beaten the odds in their young lives. The high school 
dropout rate among undocumented immigrants is 50 percent, compared to 
21 percent for legal immigrants and 11 percent for native-born 
Americans. So the odds are against these kids ever graduating from high 
school. These children we are talking about in this bill, the DREAM 
Act, have demonstrated the kind of determination and commitment that 
makes them successful students and points the way to the significant 
contributions they can make in their lives. These students are 
tomorrow's teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs. They 
have the opportunity to make America in the 21st century a success 
story if their talents can be part of that success.
  The DREAM Act would help them. It is not an amnesty. It does not say 
automatically that they are going to be citizens. It is designed to 
assist only a select group of them, the very best of the best, young 
people who have done nothing wrong in their lives, good moral 
character, finished high school, who then enlist in our military for at 
least 2 years or pursue a college education. That gives them the chance 
to earn their way toward citizenship. This offers no incentive for 
undocumented immigrants to enter the country and requires the 
beneficiaries to have been in the country for at least 5 years when the 
bill is signed.
  It would repeal a provision of Federal law that prevents individual 
States from granting instate tuition rates to these students. It would 
not create any new tuition breaks. It would not force States to offer 
instate tuition to these students. It is a State decision. Each State 
decides. It would simply return to States the authority to make that 
decision.
  It is not just the right thing to do, it is a good thing for America. 
It will allow a generation of immigrant students with great potential 
and ambition to contribute fully to America.
  According to the Census Bureau, the average college graduate earns $1 
million more in her or his lifetime than the average high school 
dropout. This translates into increased taxes and reduced social 
welfare and criminal justice costs.
  There is another way our country would benefit from these thousands 
of highly qualified, well-educated young people who are eager to be 
part of America. They want to serve, many of them, in our military. At 
a time when our military is lowering its standards due to serious 
recruiting shortfalls, we should not underestimate the significance of 
these young people as a national security asset.
  The Department of Defense has shown increased interest in this bill, 
understanding that there is a talent pool of these young people who are 
technically undocumented but want to live in the United States and 
serve our country. They need that talent. We need that talent as a 
nation.
  On July 10, the Senate Committee on Armed Services held a hearing on 
the contributions of immigrants to the military. David Chu, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, said the following:

       There are an estimated 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented alien 
     young adults who enter the United States at an early age and 
     graduate from high school each year, many of whom are bright, 
     energetic and potentially interested in military service. 
     They include many who have participated in high school Junior 
     ROTC programs. Under current law, these people are not 
     eligible to enlist in the military. If their parents are 
     undocumented or in immigration limbo, most of these young 
     people have no mechanism to obtain legal residency even if 
     they have lived most of their lives here. Yet many of these 
     young

[[Page 18950]]

     people may wish to join the military, and have the attributes 
     needed--education, aptitude, fitness and moral 
     qualifications. In fact, many are High School Diploma 
     Graduates, and may have fluent language skills--both in 
     English and their native language . . . the DREAM Act would 
     provide these young people the opportunity of serving the 
     United States in uniform.

  If we are talking about making America more secure safe, why would we 
turn our backs on the opportunity for these young people who came to 
America at an early age, who have beaten the odds by graduating from 
high school, who have good moral character and want to be part of our 
future, why would we turn down their opportunity to serve in our 
military?
  The DREAM Act is supported by a broad coalition of the Senate, by 
religious leaders, advocates across the country, and educators across 
the political spectrum. Any real and comprehensive solution to the 
problem of illegal immigration must include the DREAM Act.
  The last point I make is this: We are asked regularly here to expand 
something called an H-1B visa. An H-1B visa is a special visa given to 
foreigners to come to the United States to work because we understand 
that in many businesses and many places where people work--hospitals 
and schools and the like--there are specialties which we need more of.
  I can recall Bill Gates coming to meet me in my office. Of course, 
his success at Microsoft is legendary. He talked about the need for 
computer engineers and how we had to import these engineers from 
foreign countries to meet the need in the United States. He challenged 
me. He said: If you will not allow me to bring the computer engineers 
in, I may have to move my production offshore, and I don't want to do 
that.
  That is an interesting dilemma. Now put it in the context of this 
conversation. Why would we tell these young people, who have beaten the 
odds and shown such great potential, to leave America at this moment 
and then turn around in the next breath and say we are going to open 
the gates of America for other foreigners to come in and make our 
economy stronger? Why aren't we using these young people as a resource 
for our future? They have been here. They have lived here for a long 
period of time. They understand America. They are acculturated to 
America, and they want to make America better.
  Instead of looking overseas at how we can lure more people in to 
strengthen our economy, we need only look right here at home. As Mr. 
Chu, from the Department of Defense, said there are 50,000 to 65,000 of 
these students each year. Why would we give up on them when they can be 
not only tomorrow's soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, but they 
can be tomorrow's doctors, scientists, and engineers?
  If given the opportunity, and I certainly hope I will on this bill, I 
will offer the DREAM Act. I want my colleagues to join me on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I walk around in the city of Chicago and other places in my State, 
and a number of young people who would be benefited by this bill come 
up to me. They tell me stories which are inspiring in one respect and 
heartbreaking in another--inspiring because some of them, with no help, 
no financial aid, have made it through college. One of them, a young 
man I continue to follow with great anticipation, is now working on a 
master's degree. He wants to go into medical research. He is good. He 
is a great scientist, a young scientist who wants to make this a better 
world. He is one of these undocumented kids, now a young man. Why would 
we give up on him?
  These high school students who have worked so hard in neighborhoods 
and communities where it is very tough to succeed, they turn their 
backs on crime, drugs, and all the temptations out there and are 
graduating at the top of their class, they come to me and say: Senator, 
I want to be an American; I want to have a chance to make this a better 
country. This is my home. They ask me: When are you going to pass the 
DREAM Act? I come back here and think: What have I done lately to help 
these young people?
  We can do something. It is not for me; it is not for the Senate; it 
is for this country. Let's take this great resource and let's use it 
for our benefit as a nation. We will be a stronger and better nation if 
we do.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed to H.R. 6061.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 6061, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6061) to establish operational control over 
     the international land and maritime borders of the United 
     States.


                           Amendment No. 5031

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the bill to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5031.
       At the end of the bill, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 2 days after the date of 
     enactment.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 5032 to Amendment No. 5031

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5032 to amendment No. 5031.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 2, line 1 of the amendment,
       Strike ``2 days'' and insert `` 1 day''.

                          ____________________