[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19152-19154]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             BORDER FENCING

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the House and Senate have a piece of 
legislation more commonly known as the Fence bill, but it is really a 
bill to establish operational control of our borders through fencing 
and other means. It includes authorization for 700 specific miles 
fencing along the Mexican border and a study of the situation on the 
northern border. It is designed to help multiply the capacity of 
American Border Patrol agents to be effective in creating a lawful 
border instead of the unlawful border we have.
  It passed the House with a strong bipartisan vote. They have had five 
formal hearings on the matter and have considered information from 
previous hearings. They had a number of field hearings in August and 
they actually talked to people in the region to find out what is going 
on.
  The House has sent the Senate a bill they have worked on for some 
time and to which they have given a great deal of thought. It is very 
similar to the bill we passed in the Senate which authorized 870 total 
miles of physical infrastructure at the border.
  Let me take a moment to discussion the history of the legislation in 
this Senate dealing with barriers at the border. I will discuss why the 
barriers are an important component--not all of what we need to do, but 
an essential component of what we need to do--to create a lawful system 
of immigration. But first let us talk about the votes we have had in 
the Senate.
  On May 17, I offered an amendment that mandated the construction of 
370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the 
southwest border of the United States. That is a total of 870 miles of 
physical barriers. This is not a lot different from what the House is 
sending the Senate, some 700 or so miles of fencing. When we voted on 
my amendment, we discussed it at some length.
  I did not know how we would vote. I didn't know how the vote would 
turn out. A number of Members said they were for fencing; a number of 
Members said they were against fencing. I argued that good fences make 
good neighbors. It clarifies where property lines are, what your rights 
are, and neighbors can get along pretty well. Leave them ambiguous, and 
people get in fusses.
  At any rate, when we voted, the vote was 83 to 16 to approve my 
amendment mandating construction of this fence. That was part of the 
overall immigration bill. That immigration bill was fatally flawed. The 
truth is, it is not going to become law. We can all be thankful for 
that.
  This amendment, though, was voted on 83 to 16. A lot of our 
colleagues say, I voted for an amendment to build a fence; I voted as 
one of the 83. But, we all are grownups, we know that legislation 
containing that amendment is not going to become law. So, now it is 
time to either put up or shut up about enforcement. It is time to 
either be honest with our constituents and say, I am not going to vote 
for a stand alone fence bill, or, yes, I believe a fence is an 
important component of border security and I will vote for this bill 
because it takes the first step.
  So where did the Senate go after the first vote of 83 to 13? I 
suggest that strong vote indicated border fencing and barriers are a 
high priority of this Senate. This was a strong bipartisan vote, if 
people were voting with integrity, to build a fence.
  We had a second vote. One of the things that is unusual about the 
Senate, to people who are not used to it, is a vote to authorize a 
matter--a subject, a fence--is not the end of it. Before that 
construction can take place, the Congress has to vote again to 
appropriate the money to build it. It takes two votes. One vote can be 
a signal, but it does not have any reality until a second vote is a 
fact.
  When the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill hit the 
Senate, we were more than a little disappointed that even though the 
original vote was 83 to 16, when we come along with the Department of 
Homeland appropriations bill, what did we see? Thirty-nine miles of 
vehicle barriers only. This was most discouraging.
  I urged my colleagues, if they were serious about the previous vote, 
we

[[Page 19153]]

ought to have a vote to actually fund it. I offered an amendment that 
would actually have funded this fence at $1.8 billion which we think if 
we get someone to run it as it ought to be run and build it in a cost-
effective way, it would be enough to meet that standard. I offered that 
amendment on July 13. It would have reduced a percent or two of funding 
for other appropriations in the bill, an across-the-board reduction, 
and we voted on it. Unfortunately, only 29 Senators voted to actually 
appropriate the money to do what they had already voted to do.
  That was very discouraging to me. I talked about it, particularly the 
fact that if there is one area where the American people are most 
cynical about Congress, it is about their protestations they are doing 
everything they can do to create a lawful system of immigration when 
they are actually not. They are very cynical about that. They have 
every right to be. The American people have understood this issue for 
30 years. No President, no Congress, has listened to them and done what 
actually needs to be done and could be done to create a lawful system 
of immigration. This was most troubling.
  So we continued to study what could be done to get fencing built. On 
August 2 the Defense bill was in the Senate. The National Guard had 
been deployed to the border and was making some progress, assisting 
those at the border--not as much as some would like and would hope, but 
it has made a positive step. They have the capability of building some 
fencing and actually were already working on some fencing projects. 
Again, I offered an amendment on the floor to actually fund the 
fencing, this time through the Defense Department, through the National 
Guard. The amendment would have let them either build the fencing 
themselves, or manage private contractors who would build a fence.
  When we voted on that amendment, perhaps after my colleagues had 
spent some time talking to their constituents, the vote to authorize 
$1.8 billion for funding passed 93 to 3. So we got 93 to 3. Now we are 
cooking. We have money, we have actually put up money to follow through 
on the fencing idea. I was very happy about that.
  In the course of the conference on the Defense appropriations 
legislation that we won the amendment vote on, I was informed they were 
moving $1.8 billion from the Department of Defense bill over to 
Homeland Security bill which was also in their conference because that 
was the more appropriate vehicle to put funding to build a fence for 
Homeland Security. So, I was told that the Homeland Security 
Appropriators would handle it.
  Now we are hearing that less money for the fence is going to be 
included in the conference report, that was included in my amendment. 
There was an article in the paper today, one of the Web sites of the 
AP, saying they agreed to $1.2 billion instead of $1.8 billion. That is 
a 30-percent reduction. We voted to fund a $1.8 billion one-time 
expenditure to build miles of fence and barriers. It is something that 
ought to be done at one time and it will save money in great amounts 
over the long term.
  I am worried about that reduction in funding. Some have said the 
numbers may even be worse than that because those in charge of the 
process feel an obligation to fund other things related to Homeland 
Security and they may not even appropriate the full $1.2 billion for 
fencing construction. I hope that is not so. I think that would be 
unacceptable. That would be inconsistent with the votes we have had and 
would not make Congress look good. It would not be the kind of action 
worthy of a Senate that is attempting to gain the respect of the 
American people on the subject of immigration, a subject about which 
they have lost the respect of the American people and deserve to get 
back.
  So the House passed a bill. They passed an authorization bill that 
mandates the fencing, very similar to what the Senate voted for, and is 
now before the Senate. A filibuster was suggested, indicated by the 
several procedural votes we have had to have on this bill. The majority 
leader had to file for cloture on the motion to proceed. That gives 30 
hours of debate. Then 30 hours later, we voted on the motion to proceed 
and we did not see the filibuster continue. The vote was 94 to 0 to 
proceed to the Secure Fence Act. It took a lot of time, not much 
debate. I was one of the few Members who spoke. The 30 hours slowed 
down everything we were doing.
  The people are saying, I am for a vote, I voted for cloture. Why did 
we have to have cloture? Why couldn't we move straight to the bill as 
we do time and time again in this Senate--although less and less, as 
time has gone by. We are in a slowdown mode. We are moving along now. 
We will have a vote, I thought today, on cloture on the bill. However, 
it looks as though that may be tomorrow. Then we will have another 30 
hours of debate. Then we will have an opportunity or complaints about 
how many amendments can be offered or fall. Who knows where this will 
go?
  There are some Members who like to claim they support barriers at the 
border, but when the chips are down, through legerdemain in this body, 
manage to create logjams and headaches so it will never become law if 
it appears that is their wish. I suspect we will have people who say 
they want to add amendments on comprehensive reform, on amnesty, on 
agriculture jobs or other issues that would kill this amendment if 
adopted. They want to try to offer those amendments. Or they are 
complaining that virtual fencing, some sort of a satellite, unmanned 
aerial vehicle, can do the same thing as a fence. That is not so. It 
can be an asset, but it cannot replace individual people apprehending 
people coming across the border illegally--not a virtual fence. How 
silly is that? They will say they do not favor the locations where the 
fencing is or they will say they favor fencing, but they really favor 
comprehensive reform and if we pass anything such as fencing, even 
though the American people want it, then the American people will not 
pass their version of amnesty or whatever they want to see in the form 
of comprehensive reform.
  They are afraid the American people will get what they want, and if 
the American people get what they want in terms of increased 
enforcement, they may not be so interested in their ideas about how to 
reach final settlement on amnesty.
  We will have two real votes on fencing this week: cloture on the 
underlying bill and final passage. We should be able to achieve cloture 
and final passage. It takes 60 votes, but we have had 80, 90 votes on 
this before. Without this authorization language, there will be no 
mandate that the fencing act will be constructed or in what manner it 
will be constructed.
  So these votes are the real test this week--not the final test, but 
very critical steps in the process. The American people will want to 
watch and see if they agree with their Senators in how they vote. I 
note we will also have to have some more votes somewhere along the line 
that are also critical that deal with actual funding of the border 
barriers.
  I see my colleague from Oklahoma is in the Chamber, my distinguished 
colleague on the Armed Services Committee, who chairs the Environment 
and Public Works Committee. I ask my colleague, do you have a time 
agreement to speak? What is your schedule?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am going to be requesting unanimous 
consent to be recognized for up to 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All right. I will wrap up and be pleased to yield to 
the Senator. The Senator is going to ask unanimous consent to be 
recognized after I finish?
  Mr. INHOFE. After the Senator concludes, yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will continue a couple more minutes.
  Fencing works. We have a major problem. Last year, our Border Patrol 
agents apprehended 1.12 million people along our border coming into our 
country unlawfully. Can you imagine that? Where we did build fencing 
along the San Diego border--only 14 miles, but it was one of the worst 
areas--that area was tremendously improved. Crime went down, drug 
dealing went down, violence went down, illegal immigration

[[Page 19154]]

plummeted and property values went up.
  But we have 1,800 miles along the border. This bill would not provide 
funding and authorization but for fencing about one-third of that 
distance.
  I will share with my colleagues some of the debate in the House of 
Representatives recently, as they passed the very bill that is before 
us. Chairman Royce--he is from California--who chairs the International 
Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee talked about the 
difficulties they have had with a breach, a gap in the border fencing. 
He said this: It is called ``smugglers' gulch,'' a fence that runs from 
the foothills to the ocean through that small 3-mile breach. It has 
taken 8\1/2\ years to get the California Coastal Commission to go along 
with closing that fence in consultation--8\1/2\ years to get it done.
  He talked about the problem of that gap. And he talked about the 
field hearings he had participated in. He said: We heard from 
witnesses, and we heard them express that border fencing was very 
effective. He quoted Darryl Griffen, who is the chief agent in San 
Diego for the Border Patrol--the chief agent. Mr. Griffen, referring to 
the fencing, said this: It is a great force multiplier. It expands our 
enforcement capacity. It allows us the discretion to redeploy agents to 
areas of vulnerability or risk. It is one component that certainly has 
been integral to everything we have accomplished here raising the level 
of security.
  That is what the chief of the Border Patrol for San Diego said. So 
people will tell you fencing makes no difference, it is not important, 
it does not help. It is not so. Listen to the professionals. I know 
President Bush has been reluctant to support fencing, but this man 
works for President Bush. He testified, as has Secretary Chertoff, 
about the subject. Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff supports the 
fence, the bill that we passed in the Senate. Indeed, it was passed on 
his recommendation, the details of it were.
  Then Chairman Royce, in the House, who chairs the International 
Terrorism Subcommittee, said this about the dangerous people who are 
coming across the border: So we see people coming over the border 
illegally from Afghanistan, Angola, Jordan, Qatar, Pakistan, Yemen. And 
I will give you one example. Mohammed Karani is the brother of a 
commander of Hezbollah in south Lebanon. He came over the border in my 
State in the trunk of a car. He paid a coyote to get him across the 
border. He was later arrested in Dearborn, Michigan. He is serving 4\1/
2\ years. He is a member of Hezbollah. He was in the process of 
securing funds and resources for Hezbollah in the United States.
  He then goes on to say: Two border Governors have declared states of 
emergency over illegal immigration. Then one of the agents told him a 
personal story of stopping a man who had been trained in an Afghan 
training camp originally from Uzbekistan. This man injured the Border 
Patrol agent, actually bit his arm as he was trying to take him down. 
This agent told Chairman Royce one of his concerns was this was the 
second time the man had tried to come into the country after 9/11.
  So I would say we are dealing with an important issue. I am glad to 
see from previous votes that the Senate is coming around to a uniform 
position on it. It is time for us now, as we wind up this session, to 
fulfill our obligation for actually making a law, legislation to 
authorize the building of the fence, and then, in the few days we have 
left, to come forward with legislation that will actually fund this 
requirement we authorize. Otherwise, we risk going home and even 
further arousing cynicism and irritation among the voters who have sent 
us here.
  I believe we can get it done. I think we are moving in the right 
direction. I am optimistic. But there will be some around here who 
would like to see it fail in the last minute. Let's don't let that 
happen. Let's follow through, and let's be consistent with the wishes 
of the American people and the security of the United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 1 hour in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me first say to my friend from Alabama 
that as to the last comment he made about whether at the last minute 
someone may come along and try to torpedo this, I suspect that might be 
the case. It is like when I had the amendment to make English our 
national language--and 89 percent of the American people were for it; 
70 percent of the Hispanics were for it--and yet some of the liberals 
in this Chamber were catering to La Raza, an extremist group, in trying 
to torpedo what we are doing, and merely doing what 51 other countries 
have done, making English the official language.
  I also want to say to my friend from Alabama, I have never been 
prouder to serve on the Armed Services Committee with any member more 
than I am to serve with him. It was you and seven other of the 
Republicans who tried from the very beginning to give the President 
everything he needed to interrogate these people, to prosecute these 
people, and to get as much human intelligence as possible to save 
American lives. I thank the Senator publicly for standing up as one of 
all nine of us.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think the 
Senator has provided great leadership on security on a number of 
issues. You may be talking about other issues as we go forward right 
now, but I know the Senator would agree that our borders do represent 
vulnerabilities, and fixing our borders is also an aspect of national 
security, as I read of Hezbollah people coming across and others who 
have dangerous reputations.
  I also thank the Senator for his steadfast leadership and his clear 
thinking in regard to the fundamental issue that barriers do represent 
a critical part of what we need to do to have a lawful border.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama. And I 
think we will prevail. As to what you are suggesting, and what you have 
been suggesting over the last few minutes, the vast majority of the 
American people are on our side. They know as to people who say: You 
cannot secure our border, fences will not work--they worked for a long 
time up in between North Korea and South Korea. I think they will work 
down here, too.

                          ____________________