[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21487-21495]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   SECURE FENCE ACT OF 2006--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 9:10 has arrived. Under the 
previous order, the clerk will report the unfinished business.
  The 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.

  Pending:

       Frist amendment No. 5036, to establish military 
     commissions.
       Frist amendment No. 5037 (to amendment No. 5036), to 
     establish the effective date.
       Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary, with instructions to report back forthwith, with 
     an amendment.
       Frist amendment No. 5038 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to commit H.R. 6061 to the Committee on the Judiciary), to 
     establish military commissions.
       Frist amendment No. 5039 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to commit H.R. 6061 to the Committee on the Judiciary), to 
     establish the effective date.
       Frist amendment No. 5040 (to amendment No. 5039), to amend 
     the effective date.


                            Motion to Commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending motion to commit is inconsistent 
with the invocation of cloture. The motion falls.


                      Amendment No. 5036 Withdrawn

  Under the previous order, amendment No. 5036 is withdrawn.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.

[[Page 21488]]


  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since all of our efforts to go to 
conference with the House and to secure comprehensive immigration 
reform were unsuccessful, I am reluctantly voting in favor of the H.R. 
6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. After many hearings and a laborious 
markup, the Judiciary Committee produced a comprehensive bill providing 
for border security, employee verification, guest workers and a 
sensible plan to handle the 11 million undocumented immigrants.
  Despite repeated efforts, we were unable to secure a conference with 
the House to reconcile differences between the bills the House passed 
and the Senate legislation.
  There was successful opposition to piecemeal legislation by the House 
that would have, for example, enabled state and local police to enforce 
immigration laws. During a field hearing I held at the Philadelphia 
Constitution Center on July 5, 2006, Philadelphia Police Commissioner 
Sylvester Johnson testified that making local enforcement of 
immigration law would undermine the basic function of local police. He 
further testified that ``once we start enforcing immigration law, then 
we are going to lose . . . that response from the immigrant community 
because they are not going to contact us. Nor will they contact us if 
they have information about other people, about other violence-type 
things.''
  The one major issue which has reached the Senate for a vote despite 
our efforts to avoid piecemeal legislation is the fence issue. As to 
the substance of the construction of the fence, I have long supported 
this facet of border security--in fact, our bill produces 370 miles of 
fencing through major urban areas and adds 500 miles of vehicle 
barriers along the U.S./Mexico border. On this state of the record, 
since I do support the construction of the fence and since we have 
succeeded in avoiding any substantial piecemeal legislation, I am 
casting my vote in favor of H.R. 6061.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this year the Senate passed a comprehensive 
immigration bill. Senators and staff worked tirelessly to negotiate and 
pass that bill, which was a comprehensive, fair solution that respected 
human dignity, and recognized the need for strong border security. The 
response we got from the majority in the House of Representatives was 
obstruction. Rather than proceed to a conference to try to hammer out a 
meaningful solution, the House leadership ignored our calls to proceed 
and spent the month of August holding sham hearings on the Senate's 
bill meant only to undermine the work we completed and inflame anti-
immigrant passions. Now the House leadership, enabled by the majority 
leader, asks us to forget all about the efforts we made and take up and 
pass a narrow, unbalanced bill to help their election chances.
  If there is any doubt that this effort by the majority leader is 
political, consider the timing of this bill. On September 21st of this 
year, just as the majority leader brought this bill to the floor, the 
Department of Homeland Security announced the beginning of its Secure 
Border Initiative with the award of a multi-year, billion-dollar 
contract to the Boeing Corporation to begin work on a state-of-the-art 
border security system. Yet, at the same time the Department of 
Homeland Security tries to secure the border with 21st Century 
technology, the Senate majority seeks to duplicate and confuse those 
efforts with a plan straight out of the 18th century. Despite the 
numerous problems in that agency, it is still a better idea to let them 
proceed with the Secure Border Initiative than it is to throw even more 
taxpayer money at a redundant and inferior project.
  The majority leader seeks to pass this legislation--with little 
debate and no amendments--to pander to the anti-immigration crowd. I 
understand that the Republican majority wants to leave this session 
with something they can take with them and hold up as a Republican 
victory for national security, but true security means more than hiding 
behind walls. We should be unwilling to sacrifice our chances at 
comprehensive reform to appease the isolationist faction in this 
country. Voting against this bill is not a vote against national 
security; it is a vote in favor of the comprehensive bill the Senate 
already passed.
  Regrettably, this bill also contains a requirement for a study to be 
conducted on the necessity and feasibility of a barrier on the 
Canadian-American border. I have filed an amendment to strike this 
study, but the majority leader, as is his practice when bringing up 
controversial bills to score political points, has obstructed 
Democratic Senators from offering amendments to improve this bill. To 
think that we would even consider engaging in this type of unilateral 
behavior is mind-boggling. Have we learned nothing from the Bush-Cheney 
administration's go-it-alone strategy? As a Senator from a northern 
border state, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for us to 
engage our neighbors in a cooperative manner when it comes to security. 
If we were to pass this legislation, we would send a message to our 
Canadian allies that we don't trust their ability to achieve security 
and we would ignore the fact that border security is in both of our 
best interests. We will achieve much more by working respectfully and 
cooperatively with the Canadian government than we will by conducting 
studies as to whether we should wall off one of our most valuable 
allies.
  Another deeply troubling aspect of this bill is the virtually 
unlimited grant of authority to the Department of Homeland Security to 
``take all actions . . . necessary and appropriate'' to secure the 
country's border. The bill's grant of authority to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security lacks any boundaries--any delineation of where such 
authority ends. It would abdicate congressional authority and delegate, 
with no intelligible principle, unlimited power to an executive agency 
to achieve broad goals, for which the method of achievement is left 
undefined. Recall that this is the same agency that was responsible for 
the utter failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina. We are still 
coming to grips with the fallout from that disaster, which was made 
worse by the administration's incompetence during the storm, and its 
continuing failures to curb contracting abuses that have slowed the 
reconstruction. People along the gulf coast continue to suffer as a 
result of the administration's incompetence, and we are here debating 
whether to embark on yet another billion-dollar contracting folly. This 
is a disgrace.
  This week, the U.S. inspector general for Iraq reconstruction 
released a report on a $75 million project to build the Baghdad Police 
College, which the inspector general called ``the most essential civil 
security project in the country.'' In his report, the inspector general 
called the project a ``disaster'' and said ``the truth needs to be told 
about what we didn't get for our dollar from Parsons,'' the contractor 
responsible for the debacle. For $75 million in taxpayer funds, the 
American people and the Iraq police forces got a building that is 
currently uninhabitable due to substandard workmanship, and which may 
have to be demolished.
  When the Bush administration proves that it cannot even ensure that 
one of the most critical aspects of Iraq reconstruction is done 
competently, I shudder to think about the potential abuses that could 
come along with the building of 700 miles of fence. At the rate that 
this administration's crony contractors are performing, I have to 
wonder if a fence ever could get built that didn't have gaping holes in 
it. Before we hand over even more authority to the Bush-Cheney 
administration to create yet another opportunity for their crony 
contractors to rip off the American people, maybe we should actually 
conduct some oversight and demand some sorely needed accountability.
  Groups from all over this country, from all sectors of our society 
have weighed in against the building of this fence. From religious 
leaders to immigration advocates, from environmental organizations to 
trade associations, from women's rights organizations to academics; 
opposition to this last-minute, cobbled-together-proposal is 
widespread. It is clear to me that the idea of turning our country into 
a fortress is an idea that many Americans

[[Page 21489]]

view as contrary to our values and our heritage, and I will stand with 
them in opposition to this bill.
  The proposed footprint of this fence will trench through the 
sovereign territory of the Tohono O'odham Nation in Arizona, who will 
be precluded from any involvement in the project. Chairwoman Vivian 
Juan-Sanders of the Tohono O'odham Nation wrote Members of Congress 
urging legislators to rethink this proposal before we decide to 
significantly impair a fragile environment and a long-developed working 
relationship between the O'odham Nation and the United States 
government to improve border security. We would do well to listen to 
the concerns of those whom this bill will affect most.
  Secretary Chertoff has said the border fencing provisions contained 
in the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill are what the department 
needs to secure our borders. During our debate on comprehensive 
immigration reform, Republican Senators held out Secretary Chertoff's 
desire for the 370 miles of fence as justification for supporting that 
amendment. Those same Senators who spoke so forcefully about the need 
for 370 miles of fencing now are saying we need more, nearly twice as 
much. It seems clear now that the arguments from those Senators meant 
very little.
  For those who fear that voting against this bill will allow them to 
be viewed as ``soft'' on national security, remember that this body 
already passed a bill that contained provisions for a border fence, 
along with many other significant security measures. The American 
people are smart enough to understand what is going on here, and I am 
confident that the American people are sick and tired of being scared 
into swallowing every irresponsible proposal put forth by this 
Republican Congress under the guise of national security. Yesterday, a 
majority of this body voted to erode key elements of our Constitution 
beyond recognition, and passed a bill that I am certain we will come to 
regret. If we pass this fence legislation, we will continue this 
downward spiral of reactionary, fear-driven legislating. It is time for 
us to stand up against those who seek to corrupt the underpinnings of 
our democracy. I have had enough, and I suspect that a majority of the 
American people have had enough.
  We need to stop and think about the mark a fence like this will make 
on our character as a nation. Once this fence is built, it will be very 
difficult to go back, and we will have taken a step down a road that I 
do not think a civilized and enlightened nation should travel. In a 
country on the cutting-edge of technology, with a history of legendary 
ingenuity, and driven by innovators of the highest caliber, we can do 
better: we can secure our borders through human innovation, technology, 
and vigilance. When we approach our immigration situation in a 
comprehensive manner, we will see how unnecessary this wall is. When we 
achieve comprehensive reform, rather than piecemeal false solutions, we 
will realize the security we need. Long after the political and 
cultural storms over immigration pass, this cobbled-together fence will 
remain an ugly scar, and will serve as a reminder of a very poor 
decision made out of fear rather than reason. Rather than strength, 
this fence will symbolize weakness and a lack of confidence in 
ourselves. I will vote against this bill, and I hope other Senators 
join me in rejecting this blatant and costly political stunt.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as I traveled across all 67 counties of 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, almost to a person my constituents 
understand that America is not controlling our borders. From Berks to 
Butler, from Wayne to Westmoreland and Erie to Philadelphia, and across 
all income bracket and regardless of race, thousands of people tell me 
everywhere I go that we have to address our border security now. More 
than that, they tell me we must not reward or give preferential 
treatment to illegal aliens whose first step on our soil was a 
violation of our laws. They are clear, they do not want amnesty.
  And I hear from all the talking heads and think tank wonks about how 
our Nation is a nation of immigrants. Well, obviously, except for the 
Native Americans, we are all immigrants from somewhere, and I am no 
exception.
  My grandfather made so many sacrifices to give my family the 
opportunities we have all had. He left his family back in Riva de la 
Garda, Italy, to come to America and make a better life for them. He 
worked in the Pennsylvania coal mines and met the legal requirements to 
bring over my grandmother and my dad to Pennsylvania but that meant 5 
years away from his family to earn the right to bring them over. Yes, 
immigrants are more than welcome in America, and they have made great 
incredible contributions to our society--but they have done so legally.
  My family and millions of others have lived the American dream of 
finding good paying jobs, better education and safe environments for 
our children. The key is that it can and must be done legally. The 
foundation for the American dream must be built on the solid 
cornerstone of the rule of law, not the leaky sieve that characterizes 
our current borders.
  This immigration crisis has been caused by decades of flawed amnesty 
policies that have left our borders porous and dangerously undermanned. 
The public is understandably frustrated that in the post-9/11 world we 
live in where our national security depends on our border security--we 
still do not know who is coming into our country, where they are from, 
and what they are doing here. I share their frustration and cannot for 
the life of me understand why my colleagues continue to put 
partisanship and posturing over our national security.
  The 9/11 Commission stated in the preface of its report that ``[i]t 
is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out 
attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country.'' 
Unfortunately, many of my Senate colleagues do not think this is so 
obvious. Well, it is obvious to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania who, in applying for an antigang grant, said 
that with the influx of illegal immigrants to the 222 Corridor that 
``the Latin Kings, Bloods, NETA and lately MS-13, are recruiting or 
fighting with local gangs for control of the drug markets. Violence is 
a daily by-product.''
  The evidence is clear that the current immigration crisis poses an 
immediate threat to our communities--gang violence, drug trafficking, 
murders, rapes, and the burdensome costs shouldered by our public 
education, health, and housing systems. Just last week the Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement arrested more than 100 criminals, fugitive 
aliens, and other immigration status violators living throughout 
Pennsylvania--from Philadelphia to York to Pittsburgh. Among those 
arrested were individuals convicted of sex offenses, burglary, larceny, 
robbery, criminal trespass, weapons violations, narcotics violations, 
aggravated assault, shoplifting, fraud, and resisting arrest.
  It is time--well, frankly it is well past time--that we put first 
things first--we must secure our Nation's borders now.
  Our friends in the House passed an immigration bill that understands 
the urgency of securing our borders, but it is impractical--both in 
enforcement practice and in politics. And then the ``comprehensive'' 
Senate bill did exactly the wrong thing--offering illegal immigrants 
amnesty, providing them Social Security benefits, relieving them of tax 
burdens Americans face, and giving them better worksite employment 
rights than American citizens enjoy. It was the wrong bill at the wrong 
time and failed to pass the one real test of securing our borders.
  Yet as I travel the State, it is clear to me that many people do not 
know what all is in the Senate bill. That lack of information is 
dangerous for our national security but even more dangerous to our 
Pennsylvania jobs, tax revenue, education system and social welfare 
costs.
  So let me start by reminding you what is wrong with S. 2611.
  It does not protect American workers. In fact, Americans--U.S. 
citizens--can be put out of work--or their wages

[[Page 21490]]

reduced--by the employment of the guest foreign workers.
  It gives social security benefits for illegal work or stolen 
identities. Why does this matter? Ask my constituent--Laurie Beers--who 
had her Social Security number stolen by an illegal immigrant. Laurie 
is a hard-working hospice nurse who is constantly traveling. Recently, 
after Laurie learned that her information had been stolen and misused 
she did all of the right things--contacted the Federal Trade Commission 
to report the identity theft, called the identity theft hotline, 
contacted the three credit bureaus to obtain copies of her credit 
report, contacted the FBI and the Secret Service to report this breach 
of trust. In response, Laurie received letters confirming she was a 
victim of identity theft. When she contacted the Internal Revenue 
Service, she was told that the man using her Social Security number is 
an illegal immigrant. After talking to the FBI and the Secret Service, 
they confirmed that the person is an illegal immigrant. And this 
illegal immigrant has been working for an employer in New York and has 
even been filing income tax returns on Laurie's Social Security number.
  Laurie is understandably upset that the IRS has known for 3 years 
that someone else has been using her social security number but did 
nothing to notify her or to stop the theft of her identity. 
Unfortunately, the employer--Adecco--will not cooperate with Laurie. In 
fact, Laurie reports that they have been downright nasty. Laurie is 
lucky in that her credit has not been destroyed, but she has been 
damaged. The person who stole her identity wrote a bad check to J. C. 
Penneys and now Wal-Mart will not accept Laurie's checks--something 
that will show up on her credit report.
  That bill forgets the ``guest'' part of ``guest worker'' as the 
``guest worker program'' is neither temporary nor based on the need for 
non-American workers.
  It requires Mexican ``cooperation'' to protect our own borders.
  This bill provides amnesty, but tries to calls it ``earned 
legalization.'' Proponents of the bill say that this is not amnesty, 
and that an alien has to meet certain conditions; but do they really? 
Illegal aliens in the amnesty program are supposed to pay a fine of 
$2,000. However, that $2,000 fine only has to be paid ``prior to 
adjudication,'' or up to 8 years from now. And they get a benefit 
Americans would love to have. Under the bill, illegal aliens only have 
to pay 3 of their last 5 years in back taxes. They get an option of 
which years, while Americans do not get that choice.
  It give employers a free pass for hiring illegal aliens. The bill 
says that employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status ``shall 
not be subject to civil and criminal liability for employing such 
unauthorized aliens.'' Unbelievable.
  The bill will dramatically raise spending and increase welfare costs. 
The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
JCT, estimate that this bill would increase direct spending by $16 
billion over the 5 years and $48 billion over 10 years. But what about 
all of the entitlement programs such as welfare? Illegal immigrants are 
currently ineligible for most federal welfare benefits, but when you 
give citizenship as this bill does those currently here illegally will 
be eligible for welfare programs. If just 60 percent of those currently 
here illegally get citizenship--the ballpark figure of the number that 
have been here more than 5 years--Robert Rector at the Heritage 
Foundation estimates that welfare costs will increase by more than $11 
billion per year.
  However it may be even more important to note what the Senate bill 
did not do. We know that we must secure our borders, so my colleagues 
and I tried to add a provision to require a certification that the 
borders are secure before granting legal status to any alien who 
entered the United States illegally. I was not only surprised but 
extremely disappointed that our efforts to do this right--to secure our 
borders first before dealing with the 11 million illegal aliens in our 
country--failed. So that bill continues to put the cart before the 
horse--and continues to hold our national security hostage to a 
``comprehensive solution.''
  For this reason, in June I introduced my own bill--the Border 
Security First Act, S. 3564. My bill takes a first-things-first 
approach. This first step cannot, and should not, wait for a 
``comprehensive'' solution. When we secure our borders--and only then--
we can address the remaining illegal immigration-related challenges 
with the apposite remedies.
  Despite consensus on all of the border security provisions in my 
bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not allowed us 
to move forward that legislation. Nonetheless, this week the Senate is 
working to send to the President a bill to secure our southern border 
with 700 miles of at least double-layer fencing. I am glad we are here 
today to take a real first step--admittedly a modest step but at least 
a first step--toward demonstrating to the American public that we have 
heard you, that we understand we need to address border security first.
  And the American public has been clear, but let me focus on my State 
for a minute. In Pennsylvania, my constituents have been clear--80 
percent oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, and 84 percent support 
building a fence on the southern border. Stop the flood and do not give 
amnesty. That is the message, colleagues. It cannot be plainer. We must 
listen and put America's border security first, reject amnesty, and 
pass this bill.
  Border security cannot wait for more hearings, debate, and 
compromise; it must be done right, and it must start now. This bill is 
a good first step.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on May 17 of this year, the Senate passed a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill that contains a real solution to 
the immigration crisis in this country. S. 2611 was passed with strong 
bipartisan support. In a Congress that has been marred by partisan 
politics, the success of this bill--this truly bipartisan compromise--
was a breath of fresh air: an achievement to be proud of.
  What has happened now, however, is something to be ashamed of. Once 
again, politics has hijacked policy. Knowing they cannot go home 
without taking some action to address immigration, Republicans in 
Congress have decided that saving their seats is more important than 
securing the borders.
  You might wonder how we got here--when the Senate passed 
comprehensive immigration reform back in May and the House passed an 
enforcement only bill in December 2005. Once again, the answer is 
politics. Rather than moving to conference to work out some sort of 
compromise on these bills, Republicans in the House traveled around the 
country holding 60 one-sided hearings under the guise of gathering 
evidence.
  This was not a good-faith effort to create effective policy. It was a 
stalling tactic used to run out the clock on comprehensive reform. That 
kind of political gamesmanship will not work on me.
  Everyone under the sun is for fencing on the border. A fence is an 
important part of comprehensive reform. I supported an amendment to the 
comprehensive reform bill that authorized 370 miles of triple-layered 
fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border. 
And I supported $1.8 billion in funding for the construction of that 
fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers. I supported construction of 
this fence because I believe that it is a critical part of 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  But no one in a million years thinks this is the answer. No one in 
the world thinks Congress should pass this fig leaf and call it a day. 
If you address the reasons why immigrants come into our country--their 
ability to find work with a relatively small chance of getting caught--
as well as how they come in, then increased fencing makes much sense. 
Fencing alone simply cannot work.
  You don't have to take my word for it. Governor Janet Napolitano of 
Arizona, a border State where much of the illegal border crossings 
occur, said this about the fence proposal:

       You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot 
     ladder . . . That's the way the border works.


[[Page 21491]]


  Consider the words of the former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom 
Ridge. He said:

       Trying to gain operational control of the borders is 
     impossible unless our enhanced enforcement efforts are 
     coupled with a robust Temporary Guest Worker program and a 
     means to entice those now working illegally out of the 
     shadows into some type of legal status. . . . [E]ven a well-
     designed, generously funded enforcement regimen will not work 
     if we don't change the immigration and labor laws that 
     regulate how would-be workers can come to the United States.

  What he is saying is that only comprehensive immigration reform, such 
as S. 2661, will actually fix our immigration problem.
  And, you know what? His former boss, the President of the United 
States, would agree. Speaking in the Oval Office just days before the 
Senate passed S. 2611, the President said:

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

  Current Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, also 
endorses comprehensive immigration reform:

       For [our] Secure Border initiative to be fully effective, 
     Congress will need to change our immigration laws to address 
     the simple laws of supply and demand that fuel most illegal 
     migration and find mechanisms to bring legal workers into a 
     regulated, legal Temporary Worker Program, while still 
     preserving national security.

  Perhaps most importantly, the people on the ground in the front lines 
of the immigration struggle tell us that only comprehensive immigration 
reform can work. As Jeffrey Calhoon, deputy chief patrol agent for the 
Yuma sector of the Border Patrol said:

       We need a comprehensive immigration reform that provides 
     additional resources for border security, establishes a 
     robust interior enforcement program and creates a temporary 
     worker program.

  A vote cast in favor of this fence--in the absence of comprehensive 
reform--is a vote cast in favor of a piecemeal approach that we know 
will fail, is a vote cast against comprehensive immigration reform. 
That is what this vote is about. As my friend Senator Specter, said, 
voting for the Secure Fence Act will undermine our chance to enact 
comprehensive reform. He should know. He is the chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security has not asked for the amount of 
fencing provided for in this bill. Although the bill does not authorize 
a specific amount of fencing, it does dictate exactly where the fencing 
should be put up. Some people believe the bill authorizes 730 miles of 
fencing, but Customs and Border Protection, CBP, however, estimates 
that it will require 849 miles of fencing to get the job done.
  We can't even estimate the amount of fencing based on funding levels 
because the bill contains no specific funding authorization. We do 
know, however, that it will be expensive. The Department of Homeland 
Security estimates the cost of a single layer of fencing to be $4.4 
million a mile and vehicle barriers to $2.2 million. Because double 
fencing requires extra money for building all-weather roads, the total 
estimate from the Department of Homeland Security is $6.6 billion, $9 
million a mile.
  There are many other things that we could do with that kind of money. 
We could hire, train, and equip more Border Patrol agents. We could 
purchase more detention beds to end our unfortunate ``catch and 
release'' policy. We could place more port-of-entry inspectors and 
canine detection teams in the field. We could invest in new 
technologies for border protection, or in an interoperable 
communications system for the Nation's first responders. But no, 
Congress would rather punt on the tough decisions and dodge the real 
debate. What a disgrace.
  I oppose this failure of the Senate to do its job and live up to its 
responsibility. I sincerely hope that this vote does not signify the 
beginning of the end of comprehensive immigration reform as I fear it 
does.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, for an immigration measure to be effective, 
two aspects are necessary. One aspect is enforcement and the other is 
addressing the status of millions of undocumented immigrants who are 
living in the United States.
  The Senate spent several weeks earlier this year debating a 
comprehensive immigration bill which struck an acceptable balance 
between enforcement and legalization. We passed that bill but House and 
Senate Republicans have been unable, despite months of negotiations, to 
come up with a final bill. This is irresponsible at best.
  The secure fence bill only addresses enforcement but worse, it only 
addresses a small part of enforcement. This bill builds a wall. A wall 
that will cost as much as $9 billion. And a wall that will be 
ineffective. As Governor Napolitano of Arizona said, ``You show me a 
50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. That's 
the way the border works.''
   Apprehending individuals illegally crossing the border only 
partially solves the problem. First, half of the undocumented 
immigrants in this country came here legally and then overstayed their 
visas. A fence will not solve that problem.
  Second, the reason so many try to enter this country is the search 
for jobs. We must work to cut off the supply of jobs by making it too 
costly for employers to hire the undocumented. There are laws on the 
books that do this, but these laws have rarely been enforced by this 
administration.
  Furthermore, no immigration law that we pass will be effective if we 
do not negotiate and sign bilateral agreements with other countries on 
numerous issues including taking back aliens removed from the United 
States, document forgery, smuggling, human trafficking, and gang 
membership.
  Immigration is one of the most important issues Congress has to 
address. But we did address it in March. It was thorough and thoughtful 
yet tough, and it is the conference report for that bill that we should 
be passing tonight, instead of this ineffective enforcement bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the bill pending 
before us, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
  Over the past year, many Senators, as well as President Bush, have 
dedicated themselves to addressing the problems of our broken 
immigration system. In April, the Senate overwhelmingly passed, in a 
bipartisan fashion, a comprehensive immigration reform package designed 
to secure our borders as well as address the economic need for workers 
in our Nation. In passing this legislation, the Senate rejected the 
argument for an ``enforcement first'' strategy that focuses on border 
security only, an ineffective and ill-advised approach. Congress cannot 
take a piecemeal approach to a national security crisis. I believe the 
only way to truly secure our border and protect our Nation is through 
the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform. As long as there is 
a need for workers in the United States and people are willing to cross 
the desert to make a better life for their families, our border will 
never be secure.
  The Secure Fence bill authorizes 700 miles of fencing along our 
southern border. To many in Congress, this sounds like a ``quick fix'' 
to our border security problems. However, in a briefing before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee last spring, Secretary of Homeland Security 
Chertoff clearly stated that only 370 miles of fencing along the 
southern border is necessary. I find it interesting that this bill 
would mandate 700 miles of fencing in light of the Secretary's 
statement. In fact, it is my understanding that the Secretary feels 
that the additional 330 miles of fencing is not only unnecessary but 
also imprudent because it will force DHS to reduce funding other border 
security initiatives.
  Because of the clear wishes of the Secretary and the concerns of 
border communities over the disruption the construction will cause to 
commerce along the border, a group of Senators, including myself, had 
hoped to offer and vote on an amendment that would allow the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, the true expert on securing our border, to decide 
where fencing was necessary along the border and where money was better 
spent on other types of border security measures. It would have asked 
for local community input

[[Page 21492]]

on the placement and construction of this wall. My understanding is 
that this amendment had been circulated in both Chambers and no 
objections had been raised by the leadership in the House or the Senate 
or the committees of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, because of the 
objections of a single Senator, we are now unable to offer and vote on 
this commonsense, fiscally responsible amendment.
  Another amendment that we had planned to offer, dealing with the 
definition of ``operational control'' of our border, met the same fate. 
This amendment would have given a reasonable and achievable meaning to 
the term ``operation control'' as it relates to the Secretary's duties 
in this bill. However, again, the same Senator raised an objection to 
the clarification of this definition. I believe that this bill, and 
more importantly, our Nation's security, will be worse off for this 
objection to making commonsense improvements to this bill.
  I have struggled and debated over how I should vote on this bill. I 
truly believe that we must have comprehensive immigration reform and 
will continue to dedicate myself to achieving a thorough response to 
our Nation's struggles with illegal immigration. However, since I am 
forced to choose between nothing and a fraction of the border security 
that our country needs, I must support providing some form of border 
security. As a Senator from a border State, I recognize that we are 
facing a crisis in our border region and infrastructure improvements to 
our border security are desperately needed.
  If Congress thinks that it can continue this piecemeal approach to 
border security and achieve any real results for our national security, 
it is sadly mistaken. Mr. President, I hope that we can return in 
either a lameduck session or in the 110th Congress to not only correct 
the problems in the bill before us but also make a serious effort at 
comprehensively reforming our Nation's immigration system.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to 
explain why I voted against limiting debate on the Secure Fence Act of 
2006 when that vote occurred last night.
  In large measure my decision to vote against cloture was procedural. 
This Senate has had no opportunity to debate and amend the bill before 
us today. There are some very important amendments that our colleagues 
would have like to offer which now they cannot.
  Those who do not understand Senate procedure might ask, how could 
that be possible? After all, hasn't this bill been the pending business 
of the Senate off and on for 6 days?
  Let me explain. The Senate majority leader has, as is his right, used 
Senate procedures to block Senators from offering or voting on 
amendments. He has done what is called filling the amendment tree. 
Until the Senate voted last night to limit debate on this legislation, 
no vote was taken on any amendment to this bill. Now that cloture has 
been invoked, many otherwise pertinent and important amendments are no 
longer in order to this bill.
  Unfortunately, that has been the pattern of conduct with respect to 
this legislation and others in this Congress. This bill was rushed 
through the House of Representatives on September 14. There were no 
Senate hearings on the matter, no committee input into the content of 
this bill. That is not the way this Senate ordinarily does business, 
and it is certainly not the best way to address legislation that is 
supposed to be improving our Nation's security .
  The Senate already had a very serious and responsible debate on the 
subject of border security in the context of its deliberations of 
comprehensive immigration reform. We spent 9 days debating many 
amendments on that bill, including amendments related to the 
construction of fences along the U.S.-Mexico border. The bill 
ultimately adopted by the Senate provides for 370 miles of fencing in 
the most vulnerable high-traffic areas along the U.S.-Mexican border. 
That is what the administration requested and recommended. It also 
contained a very important requirement that Federal authorities first 
consult with those who will be most affected by construction of such a 
fence--relevant local, State, and Federal agencies on both sides of the 
border. I supported that legislation.
  Why is it that the Senate is now being asked to consider a far less 
comprehensive approach to securing our country? Does anyone really 
believe that by simply building a fence, adding physical barriers, 
lights, cameras, and sensors along 730 miles of our southern border, we 
are somehow going to make our Nation secure? Do we really believe we 
can be secure without the cooperation of other governments, most 
especially our immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico? And do we really 
believe that by unilaterally putting up barriers on our southern border 
and contemplating doing the same on the northern border, we are 
strengthening the will of Canada or Mexico to give us that cooperation?
  Is the next step going to be building fences along the remaining 
1,300 miles of our southern border and the more than 3,000 miles of our 
northern border? At what cost? The Congressional Budget Office puts the 
cost of the current fence proposal at $3.2 million per mile of fence. 
Other estimates are even higher--$10 million per mile for some 
stretches of the fence. When you add in annual maintenance, the cost of 
the fence could exceed $1 billion. So are we prepared to spend another 
$5 billion to $6 billion or so to construct an additional 4,300 miles 
of fencing to complete the job?
  In the meantime our immigration system is broken. More than 10 
million undocumented aliens live among us but at the same time outside 
the legal structures of our Government creating additional economic and 
national security challenges which the comprehensive immigration bill 
passed by the Senate responsibly sought to address. The pending bill 
does not.
  The House and Senate passed very different legislation related to 
comprehensive immigration reform and enhanced border security. The 
President endorsed the Senate-passed measure. What would usually be the 
next step in the legislative process would be for the House and Senate 
conferees to meet to reconcile the differences between the two bills. 
But that is not what has happened in this case.
  Rather, the Republican leadership, in an effort to score political 
points, has rushed through this very minor bill authorizing the 
construction of fences on the southern border and mandating a study of 
the advisability of doing so on our northern border. They have blocked 
any serious debate or amendments to the pending matter, and once final 
passage occurs they will declare that our Nation is now secure.
  That is why I felt strongly last night that we ought to have a real 
debate on the challenges to our Nation's security and consider relevant 
amendments that could address those challenges rather than rushing to 
judgment on the very simplistic and costly approach called for in this 
bill.
  Mr. President, we do our citizens a real disservice when we let 
election year politics get in the way of the peoples business.
  Unfortunatey, it will have to be left to a later date to do what 
would really enhance our Nation's security; namely, enact legislation 
to fix our broken immigration system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the following order within the 
unanimous consent that deals with this legislation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are five Senators to whom time is 
allotted. Prior to the vote, the time is limited to Senator Salazar, 5 
minutes; Senator Bingaman, 5 minutes; Senator Craig, 5 minutes; Senator 
Reid, 3 minutes; Senator Frist 3 minutes.
  Who seeks time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed the 
first 5 minutes and Senator Salazar from Colorado take the second 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes, to be 
followed by the Senator from Colorado.

[[Page 21493]]


  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about H.R. 6061, 
the Secure Fence Act, and to express my disappointment that the 
majority leader has decided to prevent Senators from offering relevant 
amendments. I have an amendment, which is germane postcloture, which 
simply provides the Department of Homeland Security with discretion 
regarding the use and placement of fencing along our border.
  As a Senator who represents a border State, I understand the 
frustration communities are facing due to the inability of the Federal 
Government to secure our Nation's borders. Illegal immigration is a 
serious problem and we do need to do a better job of addressing this 
issue.

  The Senate has passed a comprehensive immigration bill aimed at 
improving security along our borders and at reforming our immigration 
laws. Although this bill isn't perfect, it is a step in the right 
direction. I was very disappointed that the leadership in the House 
refused to appoint conferees, and instead decided to hold hearings 
around the country to stir up discontent rather than to seek solutions.
  The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill. The House has passed a bill. 
We should have convened a conference committee and tried to work out 
the differences between these bills. The failure to at least make a 
good-faith effort at coming to an agreement is unacceptable.
  With regard to the specifics of the Secure Fence Act, I do believe 
that there are locations along our border where fencing makes sense. 
For example, I support the $1.2 billion that is in the 2007 Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill for fencing, infrastructure, and 
technology, and I voted to provide $1.8 billion for the Army National 
Guard to build fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border 
as part of the Defense Appropriations bill. In addition, over the last 
several years I have secured millions of dollars of funding for fencing 
and vehicle barriers specifically for New Mexico.
  However, we need to be smart about security. Walls may make good 
sound bites in political ads, but the reality is that the individuals 
charged with securing our borders have consistently stated that they 
are only part of the solution and that there are better and more cost-
effective ways to provide for border security.
  As Ralph Basham, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, 
stated earlier this year in a response to a question about the proposal 
to build 700 miles of double-layered fencing: ``It doesn't make sense, 
it's not practical.'' He went on to say that what we need is an 
appropriate mix of technology, infrastructure, and personnel.
  Secretary Chertoff has voiced similar concerns, and has consistently 
maintained that securing our borders will require a much more 
comprehensive approach than simply building fences.
  Unfortunately, the bill, as currently drafted, does not provide the 
Department of Homeland Security with the discretion they need to 
determine the most appropriate means to secure the border. It ties 
their hands with regard to the use and placement of fencing.

  Under current law, the Department of Homeland Security already has 
the legal authority to build the fences that it needs, and I do not 
think we should be mandating over 700 miles of fencing in specific 
locations at a cost of millions of dollars per mile unless we know that 
this is something that DHS believes it is the best way to enhance 
security.
  This bill micromanages and mandates specifically where DHS must build 
fencing. For example, with regard to New Mexico, the bill states that a 
fence must be built ``extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, NM, 
port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, TX.'' There hasn't been any 
local input regarding this specific location and I haven't received any 
indication from DHS that they believe that this is the best place to 
build a fence.
  To the contrary, in discussions during one of the southwest New 
Mexico Border Security Task Force meetings, the point was raised by 
local security officials that the location of the proposed double-
layered fencing in the bill is in the wrong place.
  The bill also mandates fencing in some areas where we just spent 
millions of dollars per mile to build vehicle barriers. According to 
DHS, it costs approximately $4.4 million for a single layer of fencing 
per mile. The bill we are debating today mandates double-layer fencing, 
which adds up to about $6.6 billion for the 730 miles of fencing 
required under the bill. If we are going to spend billions of dollars 
to place a fence along over one-third of our southern border, we should 
at least ensure that it is in the right location and that DHS can make 
necessary adjustments in the interest of securing our borders.
  To this end, I hoped to offer an amendment that would ensure that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security has the ability to modify the placement 
and use of the fencing mandated under this bill, if the Secretary 
determines that such use or placement of the fencing is not the best 
way to achieve and maintain operational control over the border. I 
strongly believe that this is a reasonable amendment that ensures that 
DHS has the flexibility it needs to alter this proposal if it doesn't 
advance our overall security strategy.
  Let me be clear, I believe we should do what it takes to secure our 
borders. I have consistently worked to secure increased funding for 
vehicle barriers, surveillance equipment, and additional Border Patrol 
agents. But I also believe we should do it in the most effective way, 
both from a security standpoint and in terms of costs.
  I also intended to offer an amendment that would have provided border 
law enforcement agencies with much needed relief in addressing border-
related criminal activities. Specifically, the amendment would have 
authorized $50 million a year in funding to help departments purchase 
new equipment and hire additional officers. This legislation has wide 
bipartisan support and has passed the Senate on two occasions. However, 
most recently, the majority party removed this bill from the 2007 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. If the majority party wants to 
address security issues, I stand ready to do so. Unfortunately, it 
appears that they are more concerned with political grandstanding than 
crafting substantive border security policies.
  I strongly believe that Senators should have an opportunity to offer 
amendments and improve the bill. Regrettably, the majority leader has 
used technical procedural rules to prevent Senators from doing so. I 
cannot vote for this legislation without being afforded the opportunity 
to offer my amendments and fix this flawed bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer this amendment 
prior to final passage on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on this side there is an objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that I think 
it is unfortunate that we cannot make a commonsense change in this bill 
to make this a workable piece of legislation. It could pass this Senate 
with 100 votes if, in fact, this amendment were adopted--at least as 
far as I am concerned it likely would. The fear that the purpose of 
this bill is to get a bill to the President that has the word ``fence'' 
in the title so that the people can go out and campaign on it in the 
next 4 or 6 weeks, that is not good government. That is not a good 
result, policywise, for this country. I, unfortunately, will be 
compelled to vote against the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I think the objection just heard against 
the logical amendment proposed by my friend from New Mexico 
demonstrates the political gimmickry going on in the Chamber this 
evening.
  His amendment simply would have said that there would be discretion 
for the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to make a 
determination as to where it would make the most sense for these fences 
to go. The objection to that amendment demonstrates what is

[[Page 21494]]

happening here, and that is that the people who are supporting this 
legislation believe Washington knows better than our experts in the 
executive branch of Government and the people who live along the 
borders; it demonstrates, again, the political rawness that is behind 
this fence amendment being proposed tonight, which I expect will pass 
because people want to score political points by using this in the 
immigration debate in our country.
  Again, the fence by itself is not a solution. The fact of the matter 
is that more than half of the people who are here illegally in the U.S. 
came here legally. Their visas expired and they are in the United 
States. So putting a fence on the border as proposed in this 
legislation all by itself will not resolve the comprehensive 
immigration issues we are facing in our country today.
  It wasn't so long ago that this Chamber went into a vigorous debate. 
People disagreed. I disagreed with my friend from Alabama, but we 
agreed finally on some issues around the fence. There was debate that 
took place over a comprehensive solution, a fundamental national 
security problem. There were 23 Republicans who came together with 
about 40 Democrats and said that we will put our Nation's security 
first and we will address our national security; we will address the 
economic security issues of our country, including the agricultural 
jobs, which my friend Senator Craig has been so eloquent about today. 
We were able to get that done.
  Yet, today, in the waning hours of this session, we are moving 
forward with a political gimmick because people want to ride this horse 
of immigration on this fence-only proposal on the way to victory in 
November.
  Mr. President, I don't believe this legislation is good for the long-
term interests of the United States and the Western Hemisphere. I 
believe that we as a Senate can do much better.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the fence bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we can build the tallest fence in the world, 
and it won't fix our broken immigration system. Nor will it strengthen 
security on the borders. to do that, we need the comprehensive reform 
that the Senate passed earlier this year. We have been waiting for 
months for the majority to appoint conferees so we could complete this 
important legislation, but they have refused to do so.
  I support tough border security. I voted for an amendment, in the 
context of our comprehensive immigration reform bill, that would have 
authorized Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff's Department to build 
370 miles of fencing--based on what he told us in the Senate he needed. 
Building some fencing as part of the comprehensive reform bill makes 
sense. As I have said before, we cannot take a piecemeal approach to 
fixing our borders.
  We need to do more. We passed a comprehensive bill. It had strong 
border security, it had temporary worker program, which is so important 
with agriculture and the resort industry. We also said that we had to 
do something to take care of the 12 million people who are living in 
the shadows. What would they do to get out of the shadows? They would 
have to pay taxes, get a job, learn English, and stay out of trouble. 
And we had employer sanctions. Only a combination of all of these 
elements will work to get our broken immigration system under control.
  Nearly half of the undocumented immigrants in this country came here 
legally and overstayed their visas. A fence or a wall, no matter how 
high and mighty, will not solve this problem.
  I agree with Attorney General Gonzales, Homeland Security Secretary 
Chertoff, and former Secretary Ridge that a fence is not the most 
appropriate or effective way to secure our 2,000-mile southern border. 
As Secretary Chertoff said:

       Fencing has its place in some areas, but as a total 
     solution, I don't think it's a good total solution.

  The Department of Homeland Security already has the authority to 
build fences along our border. This amendment is unnecessary. I believe 
it is not about securing our border but about election-year politics.
  A majority of the Republicans have made very clear that they are not 
serious about doing anything to get control of the broken immigration 
system. Where is President Bush? He said he wants comprehensive 
immigration reform, and he has been silent. The President and the 
Republicans in Congress have made it clear that they have no interest 
in going into a conference to enact legislation this year.
  I believe we can only secure our borders through comprehensive 
reform, as I have outlined. No amount of Republican grandstanding on 
this issue will change that. The Senate has offered a practical, 
workable, fair solution to fix our immigration system, and I regret we 
have not been able to move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we immediately 
consider Senate amendment No. 5022, known as AgJOBS, offered by myself, 
Senator Feinstein of California, and 53 cosponsors. The amendment is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we recognize the need for a fence. We 
recognize the need for border security. But as we speak, American 
agriculture is losing somewhere between $1 billion and $5 billion at 
the farm gate because our southern border is closing. We have troops at 
the border. We are investing now nearly $2 billion a year at the 
border. This Congress, this Government, wants to prove, as we must, to 
the American people that we mean it when we say we are going to secure 
our southern border. But I have said for 2 years that, in doing that, 
we had to tie the cart and the horse together; that is, we needed to 
provide for the American economy a legal guestworker program. We have 
not done that. We are not doing that.
  In my State of Idaho now, there is an 18 to 20 percent reduction in 
the employment base in agriculture as we speak. In the State of 
Kentucky, the tobacco growers cooperative is now losing their tobacco 
crop because they have nobody to pick. In Illinois, in the orchards at 
this time, apples are rotting on the trees. In Florida, it is estimated 
that we have already lost nearly a billion dollars worth of oranges. Is 
this the fault of American agriculture or is this the fault of a 
Congress that would not take an obsolete and functional law and fix it, 
so that we could have a legal workforce, one that comes and works and 
goes fast. That is what a guestworker program is all about. In Oregon, 
an apple orchard picking 25 tons a day is now picking 6 tons a day, and 
the apples are rotting.
  The Senators from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, talked 
about the produce in the great San Juaquin Valley that rots as we 
speak. Some will say those farmers should have known better. Maybe they 
should have. That is why they came to me several years ago and said: We 
have a problem; help us fix it; help us get a legal workforce.
  We did not do that. We tried mightily--some of us--but we are now 
refusing to do that at a time of crisis. So if it is not us to blame, 
who is it?
  So let the consumer go to the fresh produce shelf this fall and 
winter and pay double the price for some of the products. Also, see 
some of our production move offshore to Argentina and Brazil, because 
it will go where the workforce is if the workforce cannot come to it.
  None of us want an illegal system. We must have a legal system. We 
will return in November, and we will be able to add up the losses, and 
that will be a tragedy.
  I hope that in November, with those losses calculated--and I hope I 
am wrong; I hope it is not $5 billion or $6 billion or $7 billion. But 
if it is, Senators, roll up your sleeves; we have a problem to solve, 
and it is a very big problem. We cannot afford to lose the fruit and 
vegetable industry of this country. For the sake of America, for the 
sake of American agriculture, it is a labor-intense industry of the 
kind

[[Page 21495]]

that requires a viable legal guestworker program.
  Tonight, in a moment of crisis--and we now know it--the Senate of the 
United States has refused to deal with the problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently under a unanimous 
consent order for the remaining speaker to be the majority leader, 
Senator Frist, who is allocated 3 minutes.
  The majority leader is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, last week, immigration agents arrested 120 
illegal workers at a worksite in Colorado within 1 mile of global 
surveillance and a missile early-warning facility. Most likely, they 
came to America to find jobs. But if any had sinister intentions, only 
a fence separated them from a critical military facility.
  Most immigrants come to America with good intentions, but not all of 
them. Intelligence reports show that al-Qaida considers our borders a 
vulnerability. Imagine how terrorists might exploit a 1,951-mile border 
with Mexico.
  We are a Nation of immigrants, but we are also a Nation of laws and 
principles. Any attempt to halt the influx of illegal immigrants must 
respect that fact. The comprehensive immigration reform legislation the 
Senate passed in May struck a careful balance. We took a three-pronged 
approach: fortify our borders, strengthen worksite enforcement, and 
develop a fair and realistic way to address the 12 million people 
already in our country illegally, without offering amnesty.
  Clearly, we won't reach an agreement on comprehensive immigration 
reform before we leave for the recess, but fortifying our borders is an 
integral component of national security. We cannot afford to wait until 
November to do that. We know what works. We built a 14-mile fence near 
San Diego and saw illegal immigration in the area drop dramatically. We 
deployed 6,000 National Guard troops to our southwest border and saw a 
45 percent drop in border apprehension.
  The comprehensive solution to immigration reform is ideal, yes, but I 
have always said we need an enforcement-first approach to reform--not 
enforcement-only but enforcement-first.
  The Secure Fence Act of 2006 let's us get a head start on the first 
prong of comprehensive reform. It requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to achieve complete operational control over our border with 
Mexico. With this bill, we will have better control over who enters the 
country, how they enter it, and what they bring with them.
  Without the critical security measures included in the bill, we leave 
ourselves open to attack. We place our national security at risk.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader yields back the remainder 
of his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Kennedy
      
  The bill (H.R. 6061) was passed.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________