[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21485-21487]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, before the unanimous consent request from 
my colleagues, I was talking about what we had done together in the 
bipartisan spirit of moving forward with a comprehensive immigration 
reform package that the President had requested us to work on together 
and on which there was a great deal of leadership on the part of the 
Members in this Chamber to accomplish a task which the Nation needed.
  That was a piece of legislation which was the law and order bill. It 
dealt with border security. It dealt with the enforcement of our 
immigration laws. It dealt with the system of penalties and 
registration that would have brought the 12 million people who now live 
within the shadows of America out of the shadows. It is an important 
piece of legislation.
  Yes, there was disagreement in the Senate as we debated that bill for 
almost a month. At the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans came 
together to pass a comprehensive immigration reform.
  I will quickly review a few of the components of that bill. First, 
with respect to border security, we said we would add 12,000 new Border 
Patrol agents. We would create additional border fences. We would 
provide new criminal penalties for the construction of border tunnels, 
the legislation pushed by my colleague, Senator Feinstein from 
California. We would add new checkpoints and points of entry so we 
could control our borders. And we would expand the exit-entry security 
systems at all land borders and airports.
  We took some significant steps forward in the legislation, including 
a 370-mile fence, which was an amendment. We took significant steps 
forward on legislation that was tough on border security. It included 
legislation that was an amendment proposed by the

[[Page 21486]]

Senator from Alabama which would have constructed a 370-mile fence. 
That was a comprehensive piece of legislation.
  In addition, we said we would be a nation of laws and we would 
enforce our laws. We did that with a number of different provisions 
which included an additional 5,000 new investigators. It included 20 
new detention facilities. It included provisions to reimburse the 
States their costs for detaining and imprisoning criminal aliens. The 
list goes on. It was a tough bill that said, we are going to enforce 
the immigration laws of our country.
  We did not stop there because we have the reality of an elephant in 
this room, in this country: the 12 million people who live here. Under 
the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy, we came up with a 
program that would have brought these 12 million people out of the 
shadows through a system of penalties and registrations that would have 
applied to them. We would have required they pay a fine of $1,000 
initially. It would require they register with the U.S. Government, 
that they pay an additional $1,000 fee. They go to the end of the line, 
the back of the line, they learn English, and a whole host of other 
steps.
  Our bill was a comprehensive bill. One of the finest moments of this 
Senate was that there were a number of Republicans and Democrats who 
came together to pass that legislation.
  Tonight, unfortunately, we are in a position where the politics of 
the day and the politics of the Senate have triumphed over the national 
security interests which we addressed in this legislation.
  The values that drove at least my participation in that debate, along 
with my colleagues including Senator Martinez from Florida, were simple 
values. They were the values that said we are a nation of laws. That 
means we have to have a law that is going to work, that is going to 
secure our borders, that is going to get rid of the lawlessness we 
currently face.
  The other value that drove me is something which Senator McCain, my 
friend from Arizona, often talked about when he talked about the 
hundreds of people who are dying in the deserts of his particular 
State. To me, those values are values that we should keep at the 
forefront, the value of us being a nation of laws and also the moral 
values we have to the rest of humanity.
  I do not believe that this political gimmick of a fence that is 
arbitrarily dictated by Washington to Arizona, California, and Texas is 
the right way to go. I don't need to go very far to find people would 
have agreed with me. The Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection 
under this administration says it doesn't make sense. It is not 
practical. That was on June 20 of this year. The Attorney General of 
the United States, Gonzales, said, ``I think that's contrary to our 
traditions.'' Secretary Chertoff said that, in fact, building a fence 
in the desert might be problematic and unrealistic.
  There are a number of people in the Bush administration who raised an 
objection to this particular proposal that we are considering tonight.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SALAZAR. May I keep going for a couple of minutes and I will be 
happy to yield for a question from my friend from Illinois.
  I say to my friends who are listening tonight, I do have some 
personal history on this issue because my family came here in 1598, 
long before Jamestown, some 12 generations ago. We have been around a 
long time.
  My own history is one where I know I am the first Mexican American to 
serve in this Senate in 30 years--the first Mexican American in 30 
years and the only one, ever, elected to the Senate outside of the 
State of New Mexico.
  When I look at this issue of the border, I approach it from the point 
of view that we as a nation have a sovereign responsibility to protect 
our borders. We have a responsibility to make sure we have a systematic 
law in place that deals with the immigration issues of our country. But 
I also believe, just as Ronald Reagan asked Mr. Gorbachev to take the 
wall down between East Germany and West Germany in order to end the 
cold war, there will come a time when, hopefully, this Senate is part 
of taking down this wall between Mexico and the United States.
  Before I conclude, I yield to my friend from Illinois for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Colorado. I thank him for his 
leadership on comprehensive immigration reform which includes real 
border enforcement, workplace enforcement, dealing with the needs in 
our country for immigration--legitimate legal immigration--and also 
dealing with those who are here who should be given a chance to earn 
their way toward legal status.
  I also agree with my colleague from Colorado about this notion of a 
700-mile fence. No matter where I go in the State of Illinois, I ask 
people, Do you see the weakness in the logic and the weakness in the 
argument of a 700-mile fence on a 2,000-mile border? It is obvious. It 
is pretty clear to me that this political bidding war on a border fence 
has more to do with the security of those who are up for reelection in 
just a few weeks than the security of America.
  You do not have to be a law enforcement expert or an engineering 
expert to know that this fence, as it has been defined in this bill, is 
so expensive--$6 billion--and that we are now passing a homeland 
security bill that has $1.2 billion, not nearly enough to even start 
and build half of this fence.
  So the realistic thing to do, as the Senator from Colorado and I have 
tried to do, is to work for sensible fences, sensible barriers, the 
best technology, the best security personnel, work for those processes 
and technologies that will truly make sure the illegal immigrants stop 
coming across our border.
  I thank the Senator from Colorado for his leadership.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the leader and great Senator from 
Illinois for his leadership in putting together the comprehensive 
immigration reform package.
  Parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Fifty-four seconds.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Fifty-four seconds. Let me just conclude. Mr. President, 
I hope as we move forward as a Senate we can find the courage in this 
body tonight to turn down this political gimmick; that in this body 
there are statesmen and people of principle who believe we ought to put 
our national security interests ahead of politics; that there are 
people in this body who believe we ought to address the economic 
realities of America's farmers and ranchers and construction workers, 
construction companies, and others; that there are people in this body 
who can look at the future of the Western Hemisphere, including our 
relationship with Latin America, and recognize that at the end of the 
day the fence that is being proposed today is going to be inimical to 
the long-term interests of the United States of America as we unite as 
a global community to deal with the issues of terrorism around the 
world; that this fence is going to be something that is going to hurt 
us in building those alliances.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this fence bill. 
And I urge we do it in a bipartisan way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Under the previous order, there is now time for a speaker from the 
majority side until 9:10.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield back the 10 minutes to the 
majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back 10 minutes to the 
majority, the majority's time until 9:10.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have 3 minutes, and for the benefit of 
everyone here, I might as well use it now. There is nobody else to 
speak, is there?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sees no one else. The Senator from 
Illinois appears to be trying to do that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly, if I might.
  Mr. REID. I have time under the order. Please go ahead.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. I ask 
unanimous consent to be recognized as in

[[Page 21487]]

morning business to speak for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

                          ____________________