[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21468-21471]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SECURE FENCE ACT

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise tonight to address the legislation 
that is before the Senate, the legislation that would establish a fence 
along the southern United States border. I intend to support this 
legislation, despite its serious flaws. I agree that a physical barrier 
is necessary along some parts of our country's southern border.
  Last month I visited southern border communities in Texas, New 
Mexico, and Arizona, and I recognize the very serious need for 
additional security measures there. In El Paso, TX, for example, there 
is a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border for about half the city. But 
then that fence abruptly ends because, I was told, of lack of funding 
to extend it. That is nonsensical: A security fence that only covers 
about half of the city that it is supposed to secure.
  The day before I toured this area, that one Border Patrol station in 
El Paso, TX had apprehended 268 people trying to enter our country 
illegally. That is unacceptable, and that is the reason I will support 
this legislation. But it is only part of the solution. I asked Border 
Patrol agents across the southern border, or the real experts about 
what is effective and what is not to protect our border and our 
citizens, whether a fence is a good idea. They replied that in some 
places it was and in other places it was not. They said it was one of 
several additional actions necessary for effective border control.
  Yet this is the only measure contained in this legislation. It bears 
little resemblance to a comprehensive bill that the Senate previously 
passed to strengthen border security and stop illegal immigration. Its 
effectiveness, the border control experts told me last month, would be 
severely reduced by the absence of a comprehensive approach. It will 
further waste taxpayer dollars by mandating a fence where a fence will 
not be effective. In short, it suffers from the defects of being the 
hastily drafted, last-minute election ploy that it is, rather than the 
comprehensive, intelligent, and effective border security bill that our 
country needs and our citizens deserve.

[[Page 21469]]

  Previous attempts to secure our Nation's southern border have failed 
for precisely this reason. They were only partial steps where only a 
complete solution will be successful. It is stupid for Congress to pass 
something that will fail, and shameful for Congress to do it for short-
term political benefits rather than the long-term national interest. I 
have no doubt this legislation will pass and that it will be used by 
those it benefits between now and the November 7 election.
  So I plead with my colleagues and with the House to finish this job 
when we return after the elections. Let's have the Homeland Security 
Committee on which I serve and other committees claiming jurisdiction 
to ask the border security experts themselves what else must be done to 
make this fence effective. Let's get the House to drop their political 
pre-election posturing and deal with the present and future realities 
of our illegal immigration problem by passing key parts of the Senate 
bill.
  It is necessary to be tough on illegal immigration, but being tough 
and stupid is stupid. Let's challenge the House to get tough and smart 
about protecting our southern border, as President Bush has proposed 
and as the Senate has enacted. But let's not fool ourselves and let's 
not try to fool the American people that this legislation by itself 
will solve or even substantially reduce the very serious flood of 
illegal aliens crossing our southern border.
  This bill is also incomplete and inadequate because it does nothing 
to strengthen our national security along our country's northern 
border, even though that border spans 5,500 miles and is over three 
times longer than our 1,800-mile southern border. Our northern border 
has not, as yet, experienced the same volume of illegal traffic as the 
southern border. Yet it is even more unguarded and thus unprotected. 
There are over 11,000 Border Patrol agents stationed along our 1,800-
mile southern border. There are only 950 agents along our entire 5,500-
mile northern border.
  If you are what the Border Patrol agents call an economic immigrant, 
meaning someone who is coming into this country for a job, and you live 
south of the United States, you will probably try to cross our southern 
border. The Border Patrol agents with whom I talked last month in 
Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona estimated that over 95 percent of the 
people crossing our southern border illegally are doing so for economic 
reasons.
  The really dangerous illegal entries are by criminals trafficking 
people, narcotics, and other illegal activities--and most dangerously, 
possibly terrorists. Our northern border is just as much a target of 
those most dangerous criminals, and many of them are smart and 
sophisticated enough to know that their chances of illegal entry are 
increasingly better along our northern border than along our southern 
border.
  Border security for our Nation is not one border or the other--it is 
both. Yet until now most of the attention, most of the policy, and most 
of the funding has gone only to southern border security. As I 
mentioned before, there are over 11,000 Border Patrol agents stationed 
along our southern border, and the major training facility for all of 
them is located in New Mexico. But there are only 950 agents along our 
entire northern border and no training facility is devoted to that 
specialized training.
  So I am very pleased that the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security 
appropriations bill directs 10 percent of its funding and 10 percent of 
the new agents hired to be committed to our northern border. That is 
almost $38 million and over 150 new Border Patrol agents, which is most 
of what my amendment that was adopted by the Senate would accomplish. 
It is a 15-percent increase in the number of northern Border Patrol 
agents. It is an essential first step in the right direction. However, 
it is only a first step. Much more must be done, and hopefully will 
start to be done when we return in November.
  I also want to comment briefly on the military tribunal bill passed 
by the Senate last night, a bill that I voted against. I want to be 
tough against terrorists, as that legislation claims to be. But I also 
want to be smart about it, and that bill is not. Its worst provisions 
would be applied not only to known al-Qaida members, but also to almost 
500 other detainees at Guantanamo who have been imprisoned without 
trials for over 4 years, and to over 1,400 Iraqi citizens who are now 
imprisoned indefinitely in that country.
  Many of them will be eventually found innocent of anti-American 
activities and will be released. However, most of them, their families, 
and their friends, will hate the United States for the rest of their 
lives after being imprisoned for months or years, denied any due 
process, many of them tortured or abused, and most of their families 
refused information about their whereabouts or even whether they are 
still alive.
  The recently unclassified National Intelligence Estimate concluded 
that the war in Iraq has greatly increased anti-American feelings 
throughout the Arab world and has created a new generation of 
terrorists. The barbaric treatment of thousands of Muslims has 
undoubtedly fueled some part of that growing hatred toward Americans 
and has added to the increased threat of terrorist attacks against us.
  This legislation allows the continued torture of detainees, denies 
them the basic rights to challenge their indefinite incarcerations, and 
even strips from U.S. courts their constitutional authority to review 
this legislation and the treatment of detainees under it.
  It is absolutely untrue--let me say that again--it is absolutely 
untrue that providing detainees with those rights would require their 
release from military prisons. Under the rules of the Geneva 
Conventions, even if an enemy combatant could not be prosecuted, or 
even if he were acquitted in a trial, he could still be held 
indefinitely as a prisoner of war until the President of the United 
States declared that the war against terrorism was concluded.
  Finally, providing humane and just treatment to detainees protects 
our own service men and women and our intelligence operatives around 
the world. A great Republican Senator, Mr. McCain from Arizona, who was 
held prisoner in North Vietnam for 5.5 years and who was tortured by 
his captors, has said repeatedly that we cannot insist other countries 
abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat our citizens humanely if we 
do not do so ourselves. In other words, we must follow the Golden Rule:

       Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

  I believe that legislation which we passed last night, which I 
opposed, will ultimately be considered one of the darker acts in our 
Nation's history, one that has been enacted only a handful of other 
times and, in every one of those instances, was regretted and 
repudiated later because it violates the values and the principles of 
this great Nation.
  It is the attempt of terrorists and their desire to drive us away 
from those values and principles within our own country, and as we 
treat others around the world, so we then become perceived by others 
around the world.
  We are the greatest Nation on this Earth. We are the most powerful 
Nation on this Earth. We are looked to by other countries around the 
world as the leader of this world. We need to be true to that 
requirement, and we need to be true to our own values and our history. 
I believe we failed to do so, tragically and regrettably, last night.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator yielding his 
time to the Senator from New Jersey?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. He wasn't going to come in between us anyway. He wants 
the 8\1/2\ minutes but not right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection to the 
Senator from Minnesota yielding his 8 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey?

[[Page 21470]]


  Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, the only objection is 
about what Senator Baucus set up; that we were going to come in line 
afterwards. I don't object to him having the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota still has a little 
under 8 minutes on his time, and he is asking to yield that time to the 
Senator from New Jersey. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY It is better to let it go rather than argue about it and 
use it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I thank my colleague 
for yielding time, his time. I do not want to take too much time, aside 
from my response to what comments I heard here, but I do want to say 
that I regret this is among the last opportunities we will have to meet 
on the floor with our distinguished colleague from Minnesota, who has 
always been forthright on the issues, sticking up for what he believes, 
no matter what the penalty.
  Mr. President, I want to talk to another issue. I want to respond to 
these challenges that I hear on television about where are the--
essentially, and I will inject the word; they don't use it, but they 
say--cowards who won't come down on the floor to defend their position? 
Who are they? Challenge me on cowardice? You have to look at my record 
before they start that stuff.
  I was an original cosponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act. That was back 
in 1990. I have been an active supporter of this legislation for many 
years now. So I do not appreciate some of the lectures I have been 
hearing from people who claim that this is a principled issue with them 
and that we are being cruel and unfair and all kinds of things. It is 
nonsense. Let's discuss the issue rationally and see where they have 
been all these years when we have had practically flat funding on this 
critical issue for some 4 years now, not even meeting the growth in 
inflation.
  I have heard lectures about the effect on minorities. I will tell you 
something. The National Minority AIDS Council opposes this bill and 
supports our objection.
  I ask unanimous consent that a communication from them be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006

       Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the National 
     Minority AIDS Council (NMAC) and our national constituency of 
     more than 3,000 minority community based organizations on the 
     front lines of the fight against HIV/AIDS in their 
     communities, we would like to thank Congress for its efforts 
     to reauthorize the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources 
     Emergency Act (CARE Act).
       NMAC supports the legislation's goal to retain the current 
     structure of the CARE Act while seeking to protect care 
     infrastructures and responding to demographic shifts in the 
     HIV epidemic.
       However, we are concerned that the legislation, as drafted, 
     does not address the need of all minority populations 
     infected and affected by HIV/AIDS nationwide, and believe it 
     needs several improvements before passage in order to gain 
     our support.
       As the nation's largest discretionary spending program 
     aimed at providing care, supportive services and treatment 
     for individuals and families infected and affected by HIV/
     AIDS who would not otherwise receive access to these 
     services, full funding for the CARE Act is essential and the 
     appropriate authorized funding levels should be a high 
     priority of the Congress in the reauthorization of the law.
       Unfortunately, the CARE Act has been flat-funded for a 
     number of years, even as the rate of new HIV infections is 
     consistently reported at approximately 40,000 per year.
       Full funding for the CARE Act is critically important to 
     communities of color that have been devastated by the 
     epidemic. Without a fully funded CARE Act, at $2.6 billion, 
     many men, women and children of color will not have access to 
     this care and gaps in health disparities will grow 
     exponentially.
       NMAC supports the direction of additional funding to areas 
     with high HIV incidence; however, with the absence of 
     additional funding states like New York, California, Florida, 
     Texas and New Jersey that have historically been epicenters 
     of the epidemic may be faced with the destabilization of 
     systems of care. We believe regions of the country should not 
     have to advocate for additional funding to the detriment of 
     other areas seeking to care for those affected by the 
     disease.
       NMAC is also opposed to several other provisions of the 
     bill, including the inclusion of the Early Diagnosis Grant 
     Program and the lack of additional funding and resources for 
     the Minority AIDS Initiative.
       If you have any concerns or questions about our concerns, 
     please feel free to contact Damon Dozier, NMAC Director of 
     Government Relations and Public Policy at (202) 234-5120 
     extension 308 or HYPERLINK ``mailto:[email protected]''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization legislation 
that is before us now would shift already inadequate Ryan White money 
away from States such as New Jersey where the epidemic first appeared 
and where the need is still growing, to States where the epidemic is 
emerging.
  I have been to an AIDS ward in a hospital in Jersey City. I have 
looked in those cribs where those little things are, twitching and 
moving because they come from mothers who have been HIV-infected, and 
the effect is horrible to witness. These are poor people.
  In this State of mine we have five of America's poorest urban 
centers. That is where we see the dominance of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
  This bill pits cities against cities, States against States, women 
against men, and urban areas against rural areas. That is not the way 
to do it, if you really care. We need to fully fund the Ryan White CARE 
Act. But the majority is not willing to do that. So they are trying to 
steal the funds away from States that have the need and already have 
the population to serve.
  It is less than amusing for me to hear people who oppose adequate 
funding for this program suddenly act like this is the primary concern 
to them, that everybody else who doesn't agree with them is cowardly. 
And these four Senators they keep identifying--I am one of the four, 
proud to be one of those four. If there is a newly emerging problem in 
rural areas, then there is one answer--add money, add funding. But 
instead of funding AIDS treatment, the Senators on the other side of 
the aisle who are not here to defend the tax giveaways or the cost of 
the war--they voted to give away AIDS funding money to wealthy 
Americans, the wealthiest among us, in massive tax cuts. That's OK. 
Give that money to the rich so these poor little things, shivering in 
their cribs, can just do with a little bit less than they have. How 
about, instead of the estate tax cut for Paris Hilton--substantial 
funds--I ask my colleagues, why don't they come out here, protest that, 
and say let's give that money to help people with AIDS?
  The majority has allowed President Bush to turn Iraq into such a mess 
that we are spending over $2 billion a week. Our whole program is $2 
billion a year. So why don't we cut back for a couple of weeks, give it 
to support treatment for HIV/AIDS. What if we could take just 1 week's 
worth of spending in Iraq for AIDS treatment?
  We still have a massive problem in our States, and maybe they have an 
emerging problem. My suggestion, with all my heart, fund it. Find the 
money for it. But don't take it away from a neighbor or another State 
where the problems are overwhelming as well.
  In my home State of New Jersey, we have the highest proportion of 
cumulative AIDS cases in women. We rank third in cumulative pediatric 
AIDS cases. Furthermore, we have consistently ranked fifth in overall 
cumulative AIDS cases since the beginning of this epidemic.
  Yet under the reauthorization proposal, we stand to lose $70 million. 
It is unacceptable. It is not acceptable for us to simply say this is a 
formula fight and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers because 
the losers in this case pay a terrible price.
  With the Ryan White CARE Act, when we talk about losers we are 
talking about lives being lost. I for one will not settle for such an 
outcome. I object to this process and to this bill because it is a 
shortsighted approach to how we take care of HIV and AIDS patients in 
the future.
  This bill will take hope away from people living with HIV/AIDS to 
urban areas in large States. I will not let it happen on my watch, no 
matter how

[[Page 21471]]

challenging or how vitriolic the suggestions are made talking as if we 
are afraid to come out. We are not afraid at all to defend our 
position. We just think theirs is wrong.
  Come out and tell the truth about how you feel about it and say, 
let's find more money. Let's have a debate about higher funding for the 
Ryan White CARE Act and see if we can get the necessary means to cover 
our needs.
  I don't think you are going to hear that from the Senators who were 
so bold in their accusations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank you. I will continue to object 
to going forward with this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, would you signal to me when I have used 
15 minutes of my 20 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.

                          ____________________