[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9309-9316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION 
                                  ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 744, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 744) to provide for comprehensive immigration 
     reform and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Leahy/Hatch amendment No. 1183, to encourage and facilitate 
     international participation in the performing arts.
       Thune amendment No. 1197, to require the completion of the 
     350 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing described in 
     section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 before registered 
     provisional immigrant status may be granted and to require 
     the completion of 700 miles of such fencing before the status 
     of registered provisional immigrants may be adjusted to 
     permanent resident status.
       Landrieu amendment No. 1222, to apply the amendments made 
     by the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 retroactively to all 
     individuals adopted by a citizen of the United States in an 
     international adoption and to repeal the pre-adoption 
     parental visitation requirement for automatic citizenship and 
     to amend section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     relating to automatic citizenship for children born outside 
     of the United States who have a United States citizen parent.
       Tester amendment No. 1198, to modify the Border Oversight 
     Task Force to include tribal government officials.
       Vitter amendment No. 1228, to prohibit the temporary grant 
     of legal status to, or adjustment to citizenship status of, 
     any individual who is unlawfully present in the United States 
     until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the 
     US-VISIT System (a biometric border check-in and check-out 
     system first required by Congress in 1996) has been fully 
     implemented at every land, sea, and air port of entry and 
     Congress passes a joint resolution, under fast track 
     procedures, stating that such integrated entry and exit data 
     system has been sufficiently implemented.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am encouraged that later today the Senate 
will vote on four amendments to the immigration bill. I hope it is an 
indication that the Senate is going to begin considering amendments in 
an orderly and efficient way. I would encourage Senators to file their 
amendments and come to the floor and offer them. I share the majority 
leader's wish to make progress on this important legislation. We know 
the immigration system is sorely in need of reform and now is the time 
to do it.
  Last week we should have disposed of several amendments to the bill 
before us, but in the Senate, progress requires cooperation. Instead of 
going forward and actually having Senators take positions and vote up 
or down, we had objection after objection from the opponents of this 
legislation who put the Senate in the unenviable position of having the 
public see us as voting ``maybe.'' We know why people get discouraged 
with Congress. They don't realize that there is a small number of 
people blocking any voting. They expect us to vote for or against 
something. There are going to be political costs to voting for or 
voting against, but they expect us to vote. It comes with the job. And 
when people objected to proceeding to comprehensive immigration reform, 
that cost us several days. Again, the American public sees the Senate 
as voting ``maybe.''
  Well, I am one Senator willing to take the consequences of voting for 
or against something and not voting ``maybe.'' I think most Senators 
would prefer voting yes or no and not maybe. In fact, when we finally 
ended the filibuster and were able to vote to proceed to the bill, 84 
Senators stood up and said, Let's proceed. They voted in favor of doing 
so. They know they are going to risk some criticism for doing that, but 
at least they had the courage to do it.
  We still have a tiny handful of Senators who keep on trying to say 
vote ``maybe.'' It is frustrating because that initial delay was not 
necessary. It didn't add to the debate. It simply hindered the Senate's 
consideration of the bill. In fact, opponents of the bipartisan 
legislation have even objected to adoption of the Judiciary Committee 
substitute bill despite widespread praise from both Republicans and 
Democrats for how we conducted our proceedings and our overwhelming 
bipartisan vote to get the bill to the full Senate. This was a bill 
where almost all of the amendments accepted in Committee were on a 
bipartisan vote. Additionally, over 40 amendments offered by 
Republicans were accepted by the Committee.
  So the votes against even proceeding to this bill indicate that at 
least 15 Members of the minority are so dug in against comprehensive 
immigration reform that they are unalterably opposed. They want us to 
vote maybe to duck the issue. They want to duck the issue. That is not 
a profile in courage. Those few Senators should not further obstruct 
the 84 Senators who appear ready to go to work on this bill and vote 
for or against it. The question is whether the other Members of the 
Republican Party will follow those who seek to delay the Senate's 
consideration or whether they will work with us to pass a good bill.
  More than 100 amendments have been filed to the comprehensive 
immigration reform bill, but over the last 2 weeks we have only voted 
once on the motion to table an amendment that already had been defeated 
in committee.
  I began this process with a spirit of cooperation. I offered an 
amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Hatch, the senior member of 
the Republican Party, to strengthen our visa program for visiting 
foreign artists who come to perform with nonprofit arts organizations. 
I was then willing, following the procedures and the cooperation I have 
known here in the Senate for decades, to give consent to Senator 
Grassley to set aside my amendment and offer his amendment relating to 
border security. Unfortunately, when we asked for the same courtesy so 
that other Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, could call up 
additional amendments, there was an objection. I was expected to 
cooperate and follow this normal procedure, but the second we asked for 
the other side to do that, it was: Oh, no, we can't do it. The rules 
have to be different.
  Then when the majority leader offered a unanimous consent request to 
have votes on the Grassley amendment and others in a manner that Senate 
Republicans, including the Senate Republican leader just a few days 
ago, had been insisting on with respect to amendments and legislation 
and nominations, the minority objected.
  Then when the majority leader asked that a group of amendments 
offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle be allowed to be 
offered, again there was an objection.
  So it is with great effort that we are trying to work through 
amendments. But like the minority's treatment of nominations, even 
consensus amendments are being objected to and delayed. We have been 
unable to get an amendment by the Republican Senator from Nevada 
pending because there is Republican objection to a Republican Senator 
offering an amendment which is probably going to pass with overwhelming 
support from both Republicans and Democrats. It is no wonder public 
approval of Congress in last week's Gallup poll is 10 percent. At a 
time when so many Americans are in favor of reforming the Nation's 
broken immigration system, we in the Senate should be working together 
to meet that demand and reflect what the people of America want.
  The President spoke again last week about immigration reform and what 
is needed. The President had with him a broad cross-section of those 
supporting our efforts from business and labor to law enforcement, 
clergy, and from both sides of the aisle. Just as I worked with 
President Bush in 2006 when he supported comprehensive immigration 
reform, I urge Senate Republicans to work with us now. Senators from 
both sides of the aisle worked together to develop this legislation--
Senators from both sides of the aisle.
  Then Senators from the Judiciary Committee considered it and adopted 
more than 130 amendments to improve it, almost all of them with a 
bipartisan vote. Senators from both sides of the aisle need to come 
together now to defeat debilitating amendments and pass this 
legislation.

[[Page 9310]]


  One of the procedural disputes that has delayed us is the application 
of what the Majority Leader has termed the ``McConnell rule'' to 
provide for 60-vote thresholds for adopting amendments. Senate 
Republicans are now objecting to their leader's own rule. That is why 
the Majority Leader on Thursday took the action left to him to move 
forward on the bill and moved to table Senator Grassley's amendment, 
which I had worked with Senator Grassley to allow him to offer and have 
pending. I am glad that we have now gotten agreement to treat 
Republican and Democratic amendments equally.
  Though I am encouraged that we will begin voting on this legislation, 
I believe that the Senate should not have gone down the path insisted 
upon by the Republican leader when he demanded supermajority votes of 
60 by the Senate on so many amendments and legislation. He has made 
everything subject to a filibuster standard. I have tried to have the 
Senate act by a majority vote, which is the practice I would favor. 
Unfortunately, the Republican leader has prevailed over and over again 
and Republicans have insisted on 60-vote thresholds for the adoption of 
amendments. That is the rule on which they have insisted. And late last 
week, the minority objected to its own rule when the Majority Leader 
asked for consent to set votes for the Senate. They cannot insist upon 
a rule for one side and not the other. They cannot have it both ways. I 
understand why the Majority Leader has asked for the same consents on 
which the Republican leader has insisted for years, following what the 
Majority Leader has termed the ``McConnell rule.''
  What Republican Senators were insisting upon is a simple majority 
threshold for their amendments and a 60-vote barrier for Democratic 
Senators' amendments. That is not fair. I am ready to work with the 
Majority Leader, the Republican leader, the Chairman and ranking member 
of the Rules Committee, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee 
and other interested Senators on reestablishing majority rule in the 
Senate except in special circumstances. That new arrangement will have 
to follow our work on this bill and not delay or be applied 
retroactively to undermine comprehensive immigration reform.
  With respect to Senator Grassley's amendment, which was tabled last 
week, I note that it was tabled by a bipartisan majority of 57 votes. 
That included five Republican votes. Of course, this was an amendment, 
as most people knew on the floor, that had been considered by the 
Judiciary Committee. It was defeated by a bipartisan vote of two-thirds 
of the committee. It would have undermined and unfairly preempted the 
pathway to earn citizenship. It would have made the fates of millions 
seeking to come out of the shadows to join American life unfairly 
depend on circumstances way beyond any control they might have. I am 
troubled by proposals that contain false promises in which we promise 
citizenship, but it is always over the next mountain: We are going to 
give citizenship, but not quite yet. It is almost like Sisyphus pushing 
that rock up the hill. I want the pathway to be clear and the goal of 
citizenship attainable. It can't be rigged by some elusive 
precondition. We should treat people fairly and not have their fates 
determined by matters beyond their control. No undocumented American 
controls the border or is responsible for its security. The things that 
are being set up to kill this bill would have blocked my grandparents 
from coming to Vermont from Italy and would have blocked the parents 
and grandparents of many of the Senators now serving in the Senate. So 
I don't want people to move out of the shadows or to be stuck in some 
underclass. Just as we should not fault the DREAMers who were brought 
here as children, we should not make people's fates and future status 
dependent on border enforcement conditions over which they have no 
control.
  This legislation is far too important to be subject to needless 
delay, and I hope the votes today signal an end to the delay we have 
experienced until this point. We should have a healthy and vigorous 
debate on the bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee. Central to 
that debate is considering and voting on amendments.
  One of the bright moments so far during this debate, in the view of 
the American public, was the way Republicans and Democrats alike worked 
in the Senate Judiciary Committee to get this bill before us in the 
full Senate. The public debate was followed online by thousands of 
people. We brought up amendments, we debated them, and then we voted on 
them. Nobody voted maybe; they voted yes and they voted no. The 
American public responded overwhelmingly, saying this was the way to 
go, and I think Republicans and Democrats on the floor justly praised 
the way it was done in the Judiciary Committee. There were 18 of us 
working together, and I compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa 
for working with us. Although he disagreed with the outcome, we worked 
together to get that debate finished. We went into the evenings and we 
worked all day for a couple of weeks and we got it done. But now all 
100 of us should stand here and do the same thing. Demands for 
different voting standards for Republican and Democratic amendments are 
wrong.
  A couple of weeks ago, the distinguished Republican leader spoke at 
an event. I was sitting there. He knew I was following him to speak. He 
said, On a matter of this importance, all amendments should be subject 
to a 60-vote threshold. Well, I have had a different view in the past, 
but I said, OK then, we will do that for both Democratic and Republican 
amendments, but let's get it done. Having different standards for 
Republicans and Democrats is not how the Judiciary Committee considered 
this legislation. It is also not how the majority of Americans expect 
us to conduct the debate. The tactics of last week undermine the 
Senate's work on this important bill. Those who have already decided to 
oppose this bill at the end of the Senate's consideration can vote 
against it, but they should not dictate the work of 84 Senators who are 
ready to go forward and vote.
  I call on all Senators to please file their amendments to this 
bipartisan legislation by Thursday and work with us, if need be, on 
Friday and Saturday and through the weekend, so we can make much-needed 
progress on this legislation without further delay.
  Mr. President, is there a division of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is equally divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator Thune.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 1197

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I think we all agree our immigration system 
is broken and it needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, every time Congress 
has tried to fix our immigration system, promises of a more secure 
border are never upheld. The bill we have in front of us today is 
following the same path as past immigration bills.
  Under this bill it is certain that 12 million people in this country 
who are here illegally will receive legal status soon after the bill is 
enacted. However, the border security provisions of this bill are again 
nothing more than promises which, again, may never be upheld.
  When I talk to the people I represent in the State of South Dakota, 
one of the questions I get over and over is, When is our Federal 
Government going to keep its promises when it comes to the issue of 
border security?
  The second question is, Why do we need more laws when we are not 
enforcing the laws we currently have on the books?
  It is time that we follow through on promises of a more secure 
border.
  Actually, you have to go back to 1996, which is the first time 
Congress spoke on this issue. At that time Congress stipulated that we 
needed to have a double- and even triple-layered fence system on the 
border.

[[Page 9311]]

  Well, you roll time forward to 2006--10 years later--with the Secure 
Fence Act. Congress again passed a law requiring a double-layered 
fence, this time indicating very specific locations, totaling around 
850 miles--even above the current 700-mile requirement. Eighty Senators 
voted for that bill. Let me repeat that. Eighty Senators, Republicans 
and Democrats, in a bipartisan way voted in 2006, under the Secure 
Fence Act, for 850 miles of double-layered fence.
  Well, you go again forward to 2008. As part of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, Congress specified this time that not less than 700 
miles of fencing would be required. To date, of course, of this 
requirement, only about 40 miles of the double-layered fencing has been 
completed.
  During debate on the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act in 2010, an amendment was offered to require the completion of at 
least 700 miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border, and 
this time with a specific timeline, a specific date in mind: December 
31, 2010. That amendment was agreed to on the Senate floor. There were 
54 votes in favor of it, including 21 Democrats, 13 of whom are still 
here today. But the fence has still not been completed.
  The amendment I have offered, amendment No. 1197, simply requires 
that we implement current law, completing 350 miles of double-layered 
fencing prior to RPI status being granted. The completion of this 
section of the fence would be a tangible, visible demonstration that we 
are serious about this issue of border security. After RPI status is 
granted, the remaining 350 miles required by current law would have to 
be constructed during the 10-year period before registered provisional 
immigrants can apply for green cards. So 350 miles before RPI status; 
350 miles after. I think it is a reasonable way of approaching this 
issue.
  People have gotten up and said: Well, this fence is old school. It is 
not the only answer. It requires a combination of technology and 
manpower and surveillance, but there is an important place for 
infrastructure to play in this. A double-layered fence, which was 
called for by Congress first in 1996, again in 2006, again in 2008--for 
which there was broad bipartisan support here in the Senate--should be 
something on which we follow through.
  One of the other issues that has been raised is, well, there is not 
money to do this. There is money appropriated in this bill. Mr. 
President, $6.5 billion is appropriated, $1.5 billion of which is 
dedicated to infrastructure. If you look at what it would cost to build 
a double-layered fence, the estimates are about $3.2 million per mile. 
So the 350 miles we call for before RPI status is granted would run in 
the range of $1 billion--sufficient within the money already allocated 
in the bill.
  But my point, very simply, is this: We have made promises and 
commitments to the American people over and over and over again in a 
bipartisan way here in the Senate which have not been followed through 
on.
  Now, the Senator from Alabama, who offered an amendment very similar 
to this at the Judiciary Committee markup, is here on the floor and has 
been a leader in terms of trying to secure our borders--an issue that I 
think most Americans, before we deal with any other aspect or element 
of the immigration debate, believe ought to be addressed.
  I would simply ask the Senator, if I might through the Chair, does he 
think building 40 miles out of a 700-mile requirement is keeping the 
promise we made to build a border fence that is adequate to deter 
illegal crossings? Secondly, doesn't infrastructure, such as a double-
layered fence, enhance the effectiveness of border control agents and 
surveillance technologies along the border--recognizing again that it 
is not the only answer; it is combined with, complemented by other 
forms of border security? But it is important, in my view, that we have 
a visible, tangible way in which we make it very clear that this is a 
deterrent to people coming to this country illegally.
  We want people to come here legally. We are a welcoming nation. We 
are a nation of immigrants, but we are a nation of laws, and we have to 
enforce the laws. We have not been doing that, and we have not been 
keeping the promises we made to the American people when it comes to 
border security and more specifically when it comes to the building of 
the fence.
  So I would ask my colleague from Alabama, through the Chair, about 
his views on this and whether we have followed through on a level that 
is anywhere consistent with what we promised to the American people. 
Secondly, doesn't the Senator think this infrastructure component is an 
important element when it comes to the border security part of this 
debate on immigration reform?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota. 
He is exactly correct. This is a failure of Congress and the 
administration. As soon as some discretion was given to the 
administration to not build a fence, they quit building a fence, and we 
are so far behind what we promised the American people.
  I say to Senator Thune, I remember being engaged in the debate in 
both of those years, 2006 and 2008. We actually came up with a fund. We 
funded sufficiently the fence construction that needed to be done. We 
told the American people we were going to do it. We were proud of 
ourselves. Actually, I remember giving a hard time to my colleagues 
because in 2006 we authorized the fence but there was no money. So it 
was later that we finally forced the money to be appropriated because 
the issue was, you say you are for a fence, you go back home and say: I 
voted for fencing and barriers, and then you do not put up the money. 
So the money was even put up, and it still did not happen as required 
by law.
  I say to Senator Thune, I think you said it so clearly. That is why 
the American people are rightly concerned about amnesty first with a 
promise of enforcement in the future. Even when we pass laws that 
plainly say a fence shall be built, we put up money to build that 
fence, and it does not happen in the future.
  So what we are asked to do with this legislation is to grant amnesty 
immediately. That will happen. That is the one thing in this bill that 
will happen. But we need to ask ourselves: What are the American people 
telling us?
  A recent poll showed that by a 4-to-1 margin the American people 
said: We want to see the enforcement first. Then we will talk about the 
amnesty. Do your enforcement first.
  The Senator's question is, How will it work? Well, we have discussed 
that over the years. The greatest example of how it works is in San 
Diego. That area was in complete disarray, with violence, crime, drugs. 
It was an economic disaster zone. There was a very grim situation in 
San Diego. There were all kinds of illegality at the border. They built 
a triple-layer secure fence, and across that entire area illegality 
ended totally, virtually. Almost no illegality is continuing at that 
stretch of the border today. Crime was dramatically reduced. Economic 
growth occurred on both sides of the border. It was highly successful.
  So several things happen. First, you end the illegality with a good 
fence. Second, it reduces dramatically the number of Border Patrol 
officers needed to make sure illegal crossings are not occurring 
because there is a force multiplication of their ability. So you can 
save a lot of money by having fewer people. When people see a very 
secure fence, they decide it is not worth the attempt, so they don't 
even try to cross. That reduces the stress on the Border Patrol, the 
number of deportations, and the number of people who have to be sent 
back. Building a fence reduces costs and saves money in the long run 
and really achieves what I think the American people have asked us to 
achieve.
  I say to Senator Thune, I think your amendment is very reasonable. It 
certainly puts us on a path to completing the kind of barriers that are 
necessary. As the Senator said, it comes nowhere close to saying there 
is a fence across the entire border. It would just be at the areas 
where it would be most effective.

[[Page 9312]]


  Mr. THUNE. I say to my colleague from Alabama--and, again, I thank 
him for his leadership on this issue, both past and present--what we 
are talking about here is something that is a part of the solution. 
This is not the totality. This is not the entirety.
  People come down here and say: Well, you cannot just build a fence. 
People will tunnel under it. They will climb over it.
  Of course they will. But coupled with additional Border Patrol 
agents, coupled with surveillance, coupled with modern technologies, it 
is a composite solution, if you will, but it still very clearly is a 
deterrent. It is a visible, tangible message and deterrent that we want 
people to come to this country legally, we want to discourage illegal 
immigration. I think the fence is part of the infrastructure component 
of that border security solution, and it is something we have all made 
commitments on in the past.
  I think it is very hard to ask people to vote for an immigration 
reform bill that includes the legalization component to it if we are 
not going to follow through on the promises we have made because the 
American people have heard this before. Promises, promises is something 
they have heard plenty of in the past when it comes to this issue. We 
have yet to follow through on this with the exception of the 36 miles 
that I mentioned that have been built. But commitments were made in 
1996, requirements to do this in 2006. As the Senator said, in 2008 the 
money was added. That was a 76-to-17 vote here in the Senate. Seventy-
six Senators from both parties voted to fund this in 2008. In 2006, 80 
Senators, including now-President Obama, who at that time was a 
Senator, now-Vice President Biden, who at that time was a Senator, and 
at that time Senator Hillary Clinton all voted for the Secure Fence Act 
in 2006.
  So, again, I am not suggesting for a minute that it is the only 
solution, the cure-all, the panacea that is going to address this 
issue, but I think it is something that is very real, very tangible, 
very visible. It is something we have made a commitment on to the 
American people, and I think it is something on which we ought to 
follow through. It certainly ought to be a requirement--a condition, if 
you will--in this legislation before some of these other elements come 
to pass because if it is not, it will never get done, as we have 
already seen going back to 1996.
  So I hope that on amendment No. 1197, when it is voted on this 
afternoon, we will have the same strong bipartisan support we have had 
in the past on this issue. I hope, again, as the Senator from Alabama 
and I have discussed, we will follow through on a commitment we made to 
the American people and do something really meaningful on the issue of 
border security.
  With that, I say to my colleague from Alabama that, again, I 
appreciate his strong voice on this issue, and I hope he and I will be 
joined by many others today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say to Senator Thune, thank you for your leadership 
in offering a clear legislative proposal that will work. It is my 
observation that things that get proposed around here that do not work 
often are passed; things that will actually work are difficult to get 
passed.
  I say to Senator Thune, I do not know if you realize that all of the 
sponsors of the legislation have talked a good bit about fencing that 
might occur, having a report on fencing. What we do know is that it did 
not require fencing anywhere in the bill. But in case anybody had any 
doubt about that, Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, offered an amendment that explicitly stated that nothing in 
the bill shall require the construction of any fencing at the border. 
So despite what others have heard about this being the toughest bill 
ever and it is going to do more for enforcement than we have ever had, 
it, in fact, weakens and almost guarantees we will not have additional 
fencing, which would certainly be a component, in my mind, of a 
stronger, tougher enforcement mechanism.
  Fencing barriers do, I believe, help the President, who should lead 
on this, who should say clearly to the world: Our border is secure. We 
are building fences and do not come. The number of people who would 
attempt to come would drop a lot if we made that clear statement.
  I thank the Senator for his good work.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I will say in closing, again, this is not--
the border is 2,000 miles long. This requires 700 miles. So it would be 
put in those areas where, as the Senator from Alabama noted, it is most 
needed.
  With that, I yield the floor and ask, when the time comes, for 
support on amendment No. 1197.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last week I previewed an amendment I will 
be offering, hopefully, as early as this afternoon, on the underlying 
immigration bill. This is an amendment which the Democratic majority 
leader and at least one or two other Members of the Senate have called 
a poison pill.
  I find that somewhat bizarre, especially in light of what others have 
said about this amendment, which I will talk about briefly. It strikes 
me as unusual that anytime anyone offers a different idea by way of an 
amendment that people do not like they call it a poison pill, as if 
that was the only option. You either take it without the amendment or 
you accept the amendment and it kills the legislation.
  We know the truth is far different. In fact, several members of the 
so-called Gang of 8 who have been very much involved in negotiating the 
underlying bill have different opinions, which actually I find somewhat 
refreshing but not all that surprising.
  Senator Flake, for example, from Arizona, said, ``I don't think it is 
a poison pill,'' on June 12. Senator Rubio said of my results 
amendment, ``It's an excellent place to start.'' I am grateful for 
their comments. Senator Bennet, a Senator from Colorado, on the other 
side of the aisle and Senator Flake argued that ``they are not afraid 
of adding a requirement to nab 90 percent of would-be border 
crossers.'' That was at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast on June 
12. Senator Bennet went on to say, ``I have every confidence that we 
are going to meet the mark well before the 10 years.'' He said that on 
June 12 as well.
  The interesting point about this discussion is the very same 
measurement or standard that is in my amendment actually comes from the 
bill that was introduced by the Gang of 8: 100 percent situational 
awareness of the border and a 90-percent apprehension rate. All my 
amendment did is to say: OK, you set the standard, but we are going to 
make sure the Federal Government actually keeps its promises because, 
unfortunately, the history is littered--recent history, in particular--
with broken promises by the Federal Government, particularly when it 
comes to immigration.
  My amendment is necessary. My results amendment, which I will 
describe further, is necessary because in its current form, the 
underlying bill does not include a genuine border security trigger. You 
do not have to take my word for it. Last week, the assistant Democratic 
leader, Senator Durbin of Illinois, himself said quite explicitly that 
while the original proposal--as he described it in January 2013, he 
said: ``A pathway to citizenship needs to be contingent upon securing 
the border.'' He said that in the context of the bipartisan framework 
for comprehensive immigration reform.
  But later on he was quoted in the National Journal, on June 11, 
saying, ``The Gang of 8 bill has delinked the pathway to citizenship 
and border enforcement.'' The bill that is being sold today delinks the 
pathway to citizenship and border enforcement. My amendment would 
reestablish the very same linkage the gang themselves trumpeted in 
January 2013.
  I think this is a remarkable admission, that the current bill delinks 
the pathway to citizenship and border security. I think most Members of 
the Senate believe that whatever we do in terms of the status of people 
who are currently here in undocumented status, that one thing we have 
to do is to make sure we do not ever deal with this issue again by 
failing to deal sensibly and responsibly with border security and 
enforcement.

[[Page 9313]]

  Basically, the approach of the proponents of the underlying bill, as 
currently written, before my amendment, is: Trust us. Trust us. I have 
to say that you do not have to be a pollster to know there is not an 
awful lot of trust toward Washington and the Congress and the Federal 
Government. It is easy to understand why with all of the various 
scandals or things that have been represented one way that turn out to 
be another way.
  There is a trust deficit in Washington, DC.
  For those of us who believe that doing nothing on immigration reform 
is not an option, what I would like to do is to do something to make 
things better. But in order to get there, we are going to have to 
guarantee that border security and the interior enforcement provisions 
and the reestablishment of basic order to our broken immigration system 
is accomplished in this bill; otherwise, it is not going to happen.
  In the words of Ronald Reagan, I think we should ask people to trust, 
but we should also verify that trust is justified. I am not sure some 
of my colleagues appreciate how essential border security is to 
immigration reform. For the past three decades, the American people 
have been given one hollow promise after another about the Federal 
Government's commitment to secure our borders.
  The rhetoric from Washington has been impressive, but the results 
have been pathetic. The reality on the ground in Texas and in other 
border States has been quite different. Let me put it this way. A 
decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans in 
New York, the Department of Homeland Security has gained operational 
control of less than 45 percent of our southern border--45 percent. The 
Secretary of Homeland Security said: ``The border is secure.'' The 
President said: ``It is more secure than it has ever been''--45 percent 
secure. For that matter, it has been more than a decade since the 9/11 
Commission recommended another important requirement that is contained 
in my amendment, which is a nationwide biometric entry-exit system.
  It has been 17 years since President Clinton signed legislation 
mandating such a system. So we wonder why there has been such a lack of 
confidence and a trust deficit between the American people and 
Washington when it comes to immigration reform and fixing our broken 
immigration system. It is because they have been sold one hollow 
promise after another.
  We still do not have a biometric entry-exit system that President 
Clinton signed into law 17 years ago, even though about half of illegal 
immigration occurs when people come into the country legally and 
overstay their visa and simply melt into the great American landscape. 
That is where 40 percent of our illegal immigration comes from. We are 
asking the American people to trust us again?
  Until Congress acknowledges our credibility problem when it comes to 
enforcing our immigration laws, including border security, and until 
such time as we take serious action to fix it, we are never going to 
get true immigration reform, and we will never be able to pat ourselves 
on the back and say: You know what. This is not going to happen again.
  My amendment goes beyond mere promises and platitudes. It demands 
results. It creates a mechanism for ensuring them. Under my amendment, 
probationary immigrants are not eligible for legalization until after 
the United States-Mexico border has been secured and until after we 
have a nationwide biometric entry-exit system at all airports and 
seaports and after we have a nationwide E-Verify system, which allows 
employers to verify the eligibility of individuals who apply for jobs 
to work legally in the country.
  That is what a real border security trigger looks like. That is why 
it is so important. Because we need to incentivize everybody who cares 
passionately about border security and restoring the rule of law to our 
broken immigration system, on the one hand, and those who, on the other 
hand, more than anything else want an opportunity for people to 
eventually become American citizens, even if they have entered the 
country illegally, after they have paid a fine and proceeded down a 
tough but fair path to citizenship.
  What we need to do is incentivize the executive branch, the 
legislative branch, and the entire bureaucracy to make sure we 
guarantee that those will happen. This is the only way I know of to do 
it. Unfortunately, many of our colleagues do not want a real trigger 
when it comes to border security. Above all, they want a pathway to 
citizenship. I am not convinced beyond that they have much concern for 
whether we keep our promises with regard to border security. They are 
hoping that once again the American people will put their faith in 
empty promises.
  But the time for empty promises is over when it comes to our broken 
immigration system. If we are ever going to push immigration reform 
across the finish line, which I want to do, we need to guarantee 
results. My amendment does that. I would contend that rather than my 
amendment being the poison pill, the failure to pass a credible 
provision ensuring border security and interior enforcement will be the 
poison pill that causes immigration reform to die.
  That is not a result I want. I want us to see a solution. I do not 
want the status quo because the status quo is broken. It serves no 
one's best interests. I am just amazed at some of my colleagues who are 
resisting this amendment. Why will they not take yes for an answer? Why 
will they not take yes for an answer on something that unites 
Republicans and Democrats, who are actually desperately interested in 
finding a solution and believe the status quo is simply unacceptable?
  As I have repeatedly emphasized, my amendment simply uses the same 
border security standards as the underlying Gang of 8 bill. They are 
the ones who came up with the standard 100 percent situational 
awareness. They are the ones who came up with a 90-percent apprehension 
rate.
  But their bill reiterates a promise but guarantees no results. We 
have had 27 years of input since the 1986 amnesty, and we still do not 
have secure borders. Now it is beyond time to guarantee not just more 
promises or inputs but real outputs.
  I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. The latest data shows that U.S. authorities apprehended 
about 90,000 people along the United States-Mexico border between 
October of last year and March of this year. Given that we apprehend 
fewer than half of illegal border crossers, this means we still have 
hundreds of thousands of people coming into the country across our 
southern border every year.
  The problem, it will not surprise the Presiding Officer, is 
particularly serious in my State because we have the largest common 
border with Mexico, 1,200 miles.
  As the New York Times reported this last weekend: ``The front line of 
the battle against illegal crossings has shifted for the first time in 
over a decade away from Arizona to the Rio Grande Valley of South 
Texas.''
  Indeed, on one day in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, the Border Patrol 
detained 700 people coming across the border; 400 of them were from 
countries other than Mexico--400 of them. During the fiscal year which 
began last October, the number of apprehensions in South Texas has 
increased by 55 percent, with more than 94,000 apprehensions just in 
the Rio Grande Valley.
  I was in South Texas a few weeks ago meeting with property owners, 
ranchers, law enforcement officials, and others deeply concerned about 
the rising tide of illegal immigration. But not only is this a national 
security issue because people are coming from countries other than 
Mexico, including countries that are of special concern because they 
are state sponsors of terrorism, this is also a major humanitarian 
issue.
  In Brooks County last year, 129 bodies were found, people coming 
across

[[Page 9314]]

ranchland after suffering from exposure because they have come from 
Central America, they have come from China, and they have come from the 
Middle East. They have come from all over the world, and we have seen a 
sharp increase in the number of people die because they are trying to 
navigate our broken immigration system.
  One final point about immigration reform. Whatever legislation we 
pass in this Chamber will necessarily have to go to the House of 
Representatives.
  If we want the Senate bill to have any chance of passing in the House 
and becoming law, we need to include real border security measures and 
a real border security trigger. Our House colleagues have made that 
abundantly clear. In other words, my amendment is not a poison pill, it 
is the antidote because it is the only way we are ever going to truly 
have bipartisan immigration reform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allocated 
8 minutes and that the remaining Democratic time be under the control 
of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to add my support to S. 744, the 
comprehensive immigration bill we have been debating over the past 
week.
  I first wish to thank the eight Senators who came together to draft 
this bipartisan bill. They have done an extraordinary job. And I wish 
to particularly thank Senator Leahy for his brilliant leadership as 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Immigration reform is an important priority that for far too long has 
been left unaddressed. We all agree that the current system is broken. 
The bill before us is a realistic approach to fixing this broken 
system. That is certainly better than continuing the failed status quo.
  I have long been an advocate for comprehensive and commonsense 
immigration reform that is tough but also fair. Standing here, 
addressing my colleagues, urging immigration reform, I cannot help but 
remember the 2006 and 2007 immigration debates and the many calls to 
pass immigration reform during that time.
  Today, 6 years later, we still have not passed needed reform, 
responded to the overwhelming call to do so from the American people, 
and moved our immigration system into the 21st century. Today we once 
again have the chance to act and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
  This bill includes strong border security measures to better protect 
our national security and to ensure that those trying to come to the 
United States for better opportunities do so legally. It calls for 
persistent surveillance of the entire border, for the apprehension of 
90 percent of the illegal entries, and makes the investments in 
infrastructure and technology we need to meet these tough goals.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to submit both a 
comprehensive southern border security strategy and a southern border 
fencing strategy to Congress, plans to achieve these goals, before the 
11 million immigrants waiting in the shadows could even begin the very 
tough but fair earned path to citizenship. This rigorous path includes 
criminal background and national security checks; paying fines, fees, 
and taxes; learning civics and English; and going to the back of the 
immigration waiting line.
  The bill before us also improves worksite enforcement to better 
protect all workers and wages, and it makes changes to our immigration 
system that will help us retain the bright and talented leaders of 
today and tomorrow and reduce backlogs and inefficiencies.
  As we continue this debate, I am hopeful the Senate will have the 
opportunity to consider three amendments I have filed.
  In the 1990s, Liberian refugees fled a brutal civil war that killed 
more than 150,000 people and displaced more than half of the 
population. Since then, these individuals have been granted temporary 
protected status or deferred enforced departure, granted by the 
administration because the conditions in their home country of Liberia 
were too dangerous for them to return. Many of these individuals have 
now been legally residing--legally residing--in our country for more 
than 20 years, paying taxes, holding jobs, and being part of our 
communities.
  Amendment No. 1224 would clarify one aspect of the merit-based track 
two system, ensuring that it makes eligible these Liberians and others 
who were granted TPS or DED due to dangerous or inhospitable conditions 
in their home countries and who meet the 10-year minimum requirement 
for long-term alien workers.
  This bill intended to include these populations. However, the long-
term alien section of the bill uses the term ``lawfully present.'' 
Since this term is not defined by statute and could be subject to 
interpretation, these Liberians and others in similar situations could 
be inadvertently excluded from this track. The intention was always to 
include these individuals. I ask my colleagues to work with me to 
correct this so these deserving individuals, whom four different 
Presidents have supported, are not left behind on a technicality.
  The second amendment, No. 1223, recognizes the longstanding role that 
libraries have played in helping new Americans learn English, American 
civics, and integrate into our local communities. It ensures that they 
continue to have a voice in these critical efforts. Across the United 
States, libraries are the cornerstone of all sorts of educational 
activities. In fact, according to the Institute of Museum and Library 
Services (IMLS), more than 55 percent of new Americans use a public 
library at least once a week.
  Libraries offer learning opportunities to new Americans in a trusted 
environment. We have to recognize the vital importance of libraries as 
we ask individuals to come forward to learn English, to learn civics, 
and to learn the skills that are required to participate fully in the 
life of the American people.
  This amendment expands on the recent partnership between U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and IMLS, and ensures that 
libraries remain a keystone and a resource for new Americans. This 
amendment would add the IMLS as a member of the Task Force on New 
Americans to help direct integration policy and clarify the role that 
libraries will continue to play in facilitating these services.
  I have also filed an amendment with Senators Schumer and Casey, No. 
1233 that would upgrade the immigration bar on expatriate tax dodgers. 
I authored an amendment to the 1996 immigration law that prohibits 
citizens who renounced their citizenship in order to avoid taxation 
from reentering the United States. I was prompted to act after hearing 
about a raft of wealthy U.S. citizens who gave up their citizenship to 
avoid paying taxes but would obtain reentry to the United States very 
easily and continue, effectually, to live their lives as Americans, 
even though they were for, tax purposes, foreigners.
  One of the more egregious examples was Kenneth Dart, a billionaire 
who, in the early 1990s, renounced his American citizenship to avoid 
paying U.S. taxes. He became a citizen of Belize and then was appointed 
by the Government of Belize to be a consular officer in Sarasota, FL, 
Mr. Dart's hometown. This ruse and other ruses such as this must be 
stopped. My amendment would make it clear that the Department of 
Homeland Security must stop this flouting of the law by people who 
avoid taxes by changing their citizenship and then freely return to the 
United States.
  I look forward to action on these amendments during this debate. This 
is an important debate. Indeed, the strong bipartisan vote that brought 
us to this moment procedurally captures the overwhelming recognition 
that we need to fix the system. We need to move forward.
  This is a situation where we have a bipartisan bill that has 
overwhelming

[[Page 9315]]

support in the United States. We must move it forward, amend it 
appropriately as I have suggested, pass it, and then send it to the 
House with the hope and the expectation that the President will sign 
this bill, opening a new era in this country for the millions who are 
seeking to be Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Syria

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, there is so much good flowing through the 
veins of this country. We are, by and large, a compassionate, just 
people. It hurts us deeply to see pain and suffering in places that 
don't enjoy the relative safety and security of America.
  We are, more so than ever before, a powerful people. We are the one 
remaining superpower with a military that dwarfs all others and a 
record of throwing our weight around in all corners of the globe.
  Mixed correctly, this combination of goodness and power can be a 
transformation. It can lighten the load of oppressed peoples. It can 
lift the disenfranchised. It can cure diseases.
  There is one fatal trap that comes with these defining 
characteristics of 21st century America, a tripwire that has ensnared 
our Nation too many times in recent history. This is the belief that 
there are no limits to what this combination of goodness and power can 
achieve. In a word, that trap is hubris. I rise because I fear we are 
on the verge of falling into this trap once again.
  In April, the Presiding Officer and I, as well as several other 
Members of the Senate and the House, visited the Kilis refugee camps of 
Turkey and Syria. These were reportedly the best of the refugee camps 
set up to shelter Syrian families fleeing the blood and carnage of that 
country's civil war. It is not a place I would have wanted to stay for 
another hour.
  We met a girl who had half her face scarred by a Syrian rocket 
attack. I met a little orphan boy whose parents had been felled by the 
ruthless tactics of Bashar al-Asad. We were there for an afternoon, but 
we didn't need to spend more than 10 minutes in that place to be deeply 
moved by the case of the refugees.
  Of course, Syria presents not only a humanitarian imperative, Syria 
is of immense strategic importance to the United States. The Asad 
regime has been a thorn in our side for years, and now his refusal to 
step down has created a bloody conflict that is in real time 
destabilizing a region that is critical to our national security 
interests. Even worse, the fight has drawn in Islamist groups 
affiliated with al-Qaida. A failure to root out their influence and 
reduce their presence threatens to hand them a new base of operation 
with which to plot attacks against Americans.
  It is easy to see why American intervention is so tempting. It is 
easy to see why President Obama has chosen to act: a humanitarian 
crisis, a strategic interest, a uniquely American blend of goodness and 
power tells us we can, that we must try to make things better.
  Here is the rub. It is not enough for there to be a will. There also 
has to be a way.
  Today in Syria I do not believe there is that way. I do not believe 
this Congress should give the President the ability to escalate 
America's role in the Syrian conflict without a clear set of goals and 
a clear sense that we can achieve these goals.
  Let's start with the odds attached to our first objective, 
overthrowing Bashar al-Asad. The unfortunate reality is that the 
momentum is with the Asad regime. With the help of Hezbollah and Qasem 
Soleimani, a senior Iranian Quds Force commander, Asad has driven the 
rebels from the key town of Qusayr, and his forces are now battering 
the rebels' positions in Aleppo.
  American-supplied automatic weapons are not going to be enough to 
change this reality. While antitank and anti-aircraft weapons, along 
with armored vehicles, could give the advantage to the Syrian 
opposition, this would, frankly, invite another more sinister problem. 
The Syrian opposition is not a monolithic force. It is an interlocking, 
sometimes interdependently operating, sometimes independently 
operating, force.
  Our favored faction is the Free Syrian Army, but they are currently 
far from the most effective fighting force of the opposition.
  Today the most effective fighting unit of the rebels is Jabat al-
Nusra, an Islamist extremist group with demonstrable ties to al-Qaida. 
If we give heavy weaponry to the FSA, there is virtually no guarantee 
these weapons will not find their way to Jabat al-Nusra, a group that 
represents the very movement we are fighting across the globe.
  In fact, we have been down this road before. In the eighties, we gave 
powerful weapons to the mujahedin in Afghanistan, freedom fighters that 
we supported in their war against the Soviets. Of course, as we all 
know, after kicking out the Soviets, those fighters later formed the 
foundation of the Taliban, providing a staging ground in Afghanistan 
for al-Qaida's plans against the United States.
  Let's take our second objective. Even if we are successful in 
toppling Asad, it matters to us greatly who takes the reins of Syria 
next. I can't imagine we are getting into this fight just to turn the 
country over to the al-Nusra front or another Iranian- or Russian-
backed regime. But if we do care about which regime comes next, and we 
should, then we need to admit we aren't intervening in Syria for the 
short run. We are in this for the long haul. Why? Because as we all 
learned in history class, these upheavals run a pretty predictable 
course. There is first the revolution and then there is the civil war.
  Iran nor Russia will allow a U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army to simply 
stand up a new government. Certainly, Jabat al-Nusra and other 
extremist groups are not going to do the lion's share of the early 
fighting and then just walk away with no role in the new government.
  Then we have to admit we are in the medium and in the long term 
deciding to arm one side of what promises to be a very complicated 
multifront heavily proxied civil war.
  One may say there is still an interest to negotiate the politics and 
the military logistics of this second conflict. To that I would ask, 
what is the evidence we have ever gotten this tightrope right in the 
past? Recent history tells us America is pretty miserable at pulling 
the strings of Middle Eastern politics. In Afghanistan, after 10 years 
of heavy military presence, many experts think that when we leave, the 
place is going to look pretty much like it did before we got there. If 
we can't effect change with tens of thousands of troops, how are we 
going to do it in Syria with just guns and cash?
  There is a risk that our assistance could actually make things worse. 
Would it not embolden the Iranians, the Russians or the extremists to 
fight harder against the new regime if they know they are backed by 
American money and arms?
  As we saw in our disastrous occupation of Iraq, American presence 
often attracts extremists, not repels them. Our money and arms become 
bulletin board material for extremist groups around the globe. Why 
would we want to help al-Qaida's recruitment by putting a big red, 
white, and blue target on Damascus for years to come?
  The bottom line is this: Not everywhere where there is an American 
interest is there also a reason for American military action. In Syria, 
with a badly splintered opposition, a potential nightmare follow-on 
civil war, I believe the odds are slim that U.S. military assistance 
will make the difference that the President believes it will make. And 
I worry that our presence could harm, not advance, our national 
security interests.
  There is, thankfully, another way. Given the atrocities occurring 
within Syria and the potential for further destabilization in the 
region, the United

[[Page 9316]]

States cannot and should not simply walk away from Syria. We should 
dramatically increase our humanitarian aid--both inside and outside 
Syria. We should help improve conditions at the refugee camps in Turkey 
and Jordan, and help other nations bearing the burden of displaced 
persons, such as Lebanon and Iraq, deal with the influx of people. Put 
simply, we should concentrate our efforts on humanitarian help inside 
Syria and on making sure the conflict doesn't spill outside of Syria's 
borders.
  At the very least, our Nation's role in Syria deserves a full debate 
in Congress before America commits itself to a course of action with 
such potentially huge consequences for our national interests. 
According to published press reports, the administration has indicated 
it does not intend to seek congressional approval before shipping arms 
to the Free Syrian Army--at a time, I would note with some irony, when 
the United States still officially recognizes the Asad government.
  The Foreign Relations Committee has done its work here, and I commend 
Chairman Menendez. We have had hearings, we have held a debate and a 
vote on a resolution, but now that the President has announced these 
new steps, it is incumbent upon the full Senate to ask questions of the 
administration's short-term and long-term goals, and to debate the 
consequences of American intervention fully. This is serious business, 
and the American public deserves a full debate.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer for these few extra 
minutes. I intend to speak until 12:45.
  There is a lot to say about the immigration bill, and obviously there 
are amendments that are pending.
  One, the Thune amendment would delay the process of bringing people 
out of the shadows until 350 miles of double-layer fencing is complete. 
This could have the impact of delaying the process for years. I note 
with some interest that the Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, 
believes there is no more fencing required in the State of Texas.
  Fencing is important. Surveillance is more important. This bill alone 
as presently written includes $1.5 billion of fencing for the southern 
border as a trigger to begin adjustment of status for those in RPI 
status, but it doesn't arbitrarily dictate the number of miles of 
double-layer fencing that should be built. I think we should leave that 
to the best judgment of the Border Patrol.
  I would point out that back in 2007, the Senators from Texas added an 
amendment to an appropriations bill that said: If the Secretary 
determines the use or placement of resources is not the most 
appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the 
international border. We currently have 352 miles of pedestrian 
fencing, 298 miles of vehicle fencing along the southern border, which 
is where the Border Patrol said it is most effective.
  The Vitter amendment has the same limitations. We agree, and in the 
bill an exit-entry system is created. The bill mandates that before 
anyone receives a green card, an entry-exit system must be in place in 
all air and sea capabilities.
  I want to remind my colleagues who keep referring back to 1986--and I 
was around at that time--there was no real provision for border 
security there. There are provisions here. And I want to emphasize that 
we know exactly from the Border Patrol the technology that is needed in 
each sector in order to get 90-percent effective control of the border 
and 100-percent situational awareness, and these are detailed in 
important technology--which is the real answer to border security.
  I am absolutely confident that with the implementation of this 
technology-based border security system, we can absolutely guarantee 
the American people--but, more importantly, the head of the Border 
Patrol--I will have a statement from him early this afternoon, and he 
will say that if we implement the technology--which they gave us the 
detailed list of--he is confident we can have 90-percent effective 
control of our border and 100-percent situational awareness.
  I hope my colleagues who are concerned about border security--and 
legitimately they are--will pay attention to the statement of the head 
of the Border Patrol who says unequivocally that if we adapt these 
specific enforcement capabilities and technology, we will be able to 
have control of our border. That is an important item in this debate 
and it is incredible detail.
  Also in this legislation we need to give them the flexibility where 
there is the improved technology, et cetera. We do need more people to 
facilitate movement across our ports of entry, but we have 21,000 
Border Patrol. Today, on the Arizona-Mexico border there are people 
sitting in vehicles in 120-degree heat. In 1986, we had 4,000 Border 
Patrol. We now have 21,000. What we need is the technology that has 
been developed in the intervening years.
  I would be more than happy to say to my colleagues that if we have a 
provision that this strategy must be implemented and is providing 90-
percent effective border control, that would serve as a trigger.
  I hope my colleagues will reject the pending Vitter and Thune 
amendments and we will move on with the legislative process.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________