Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM. I certainly will.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to first commend the Senator from South Carolina. He and I have spoken in the well here on the floor about this issue. I am trying, as he is, to understand this issue from another's point of view because I am a lucky person. My mother was an immigrant to this country. When her parents came to this country from Lithuania, they did not speak English. My mother spoke both Lithuanian and English, and as a young girl was an interpreter in court so immigrant families could have justice even if they didn't understand English very well. My mother spoke both languages, but I speak only English.
The Spanish language has become an important symbol for so many people in this country. It reflects on their heritage. It is a source of pride. They are proud to be Americans, but they are equally proud to have a heritage they can point to.
I look at the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. I can't quarrel with his beginning sentence where he says:
The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America.
That strikes me as a statement of fact. English is our language. Success in America depends on a command of English. If you speak only Spanish, your horizons are very limited.
But what troubles me, and I am still wrestling with it, and I think the Senator from South Carolina is as well, is the rest of the amendment. What happens in the situation where a person is here legally in the United States but has limited English language skills--what happens when that person, legally here, goes into a courtroom, goes in to vote, goes before law enforcement agencies? What kind of guarantee can we give that the person will be treated fairly? Because just as English is at the root of who we are as Americans, so is the concept of fairness.
I am trying to find the balance. I think the Senator from South Carolina is looking for that same balance. I would like to ask the Senator to reflect on whether we are being careful in the language of this amendment. Are we going too far? Are we going to find people who are poor, people with limited language skills, who will not receive the kind of treatment and fairness we really take pride in as Americans?
Mr. GRAHAM. I will be glad to answer. That is a great question. Here is the way I view what we are trying to do. Please, others, speak up.
Even though we are trying, in this amendment, to promote the idea that English is the national language and the Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America, there is something else we are trying to avoid doing. The truth is that a variety of Government services are authorized and provided by law in languages other than English. That decision has been made in the Voting Rights Act. There are a bunch of incidences in our law through court decisions, statutory schemes, maybe regulatory schemes, that would authorize a service to be provided by the U.S. Government in a language other than English. My goal is to make sure, in trying to bring us together, focusing on English as an essential part of who we are, not to disturb that legal setting.
So if in the example of the Senator of someone who is needing translation in court because they are not competent in the language, the English language, and they can't understand the proceedings--if a judge determines that or there is a statute which requires that person be provided translation, interpreting services, nothing in this amendment would override that.
Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator to yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. Can the Senator point to me in a current situation where a Government service is being offered and explained in a language in addition to English--and that is usually the case.
Mr. GRAHAM. Right.
Mr. DURBIN. There will be English and then another language. And in my home State of Illinois, that language might be Polish, incidentally, or the Filipino dialect of Tagalog, for example, that might be the case.
Mr. GRAHAM. Right.
Mr. DURBIN. Can the Senator point to a single circumstance where he thinks there is an injustice in providing that alternative language instruction, an injustice that requires us to change the law of the United States of America?
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield so I can answer this question?
Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead.
Mr. INHOFE. First of all, if you look at the second page of the bill, it provides:
Unless otherwise authorized or provided by law. .....
So we have that set up for exceptions that are already in law.
Now, the Court Interpreters Act was passed in 1978. They did not, prior to that time--there was a problem that corrected. That act, the Court Interpreters Act, protects already existing constitutional rights such as the 6th amendment, the right to confront witnesses speaking against you, and the 5th amendment and 14th amendment and due process. The United States--I think it was in Negron v. New York. That is a Federal case which is often cited to support the right to an interpreter in Federal and State proceedings. So it is Federal and State proceedings. I believe that exception takes care of the problem you have.
Mr. DURBIN. I don't know whether to direct my question to the Senator from South Carolina, who I believe has the floor at this time, or to the Senator from Oklahoma. What is happening on the floor of the Senate is getting dangerously close to a debate, which hardly ever happens. And I ask those on C-SPAN to turn up the volume. This may turn out to be a debate.
Mr. GRAHAM. Let's go back to the original question and incorporate it into the answer. The Senator asked me if I know of a case where the American Government provides a service in some language other than English that I find unjustified? The answer is overwhelmingly no. We do provide, at the Federal level, bilingual ballots and other services outside of English for a reason, and I think those reasons are good.
The Senator from Oklahoma gave an example. I believe it is a Federal statute that makes sure that due process rights of people not sufficiently trained in understanding English are preserved. At some point in time--in 1978 or whenever it was--Congress came along and said: There will be services provided in a language other than English in a court setting. Not only do I think that is just, but I want to preserve it.
Here is the ultimate answer to the Senator's question. If there is an example of an injustice in the Senator's mind as an individual Senator, where the Government of our country is providing a service not in English, this will not remedy that injustice.
That is what I am trying to say. Passing this amendment, voting for this amendment will not remedy that injustice. If you find one, you would have to come to the floor of the Senate and introduce a bill--a regulation--because this does not do that.
What Senator Inhofe said is absolutely right. The reason I am going to vote for this is because I think it tries to unite us without taking off the table exceptions to English or services provided other than English. It doesn't disturb the legal situation in this country by a statute, regulation, court decree or an Executive order conferring rights of people to receive services other than English. If I thought it did, I wouldn't vote for it.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I may ask the Senator to yield for a question, I wish there were a way to engage the Senator from Oklahoma because it is his amendment, and I would like to hear his response. I hold in my hand a publication from the Department of Justice which you can find on the Web site. I invite my colleagues to go to the Web site. They can read this official publication from the Department of Justice, and this is what they will learn. It is entitled, ``Know Your Rights.''
Do you have trouble with English? Are you unable to speak, read, write, or understand English well? If so, you are limited in English proficiency. Federal agencies and organizations which get money from the Federal Government have to take reasonable steps to help people who have trouble with English. Sometimes when a government agency or organization does not help you because you are limited in English proficiency, they violate the law. This is called ``national origin discrimination.''
They go on to say:
There is a Federal law that protects your civil rights. The law is called ``Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.''
It goes on with examples of possible discrimination. If you come to a hospital and you have limited English proficiency, they are supposed to be able to try to help you understand what your rights are and treat you.
Are we changing that? Will the Inhofe amendment change that? If it doesn't, why are we enacting this? If this is law which we are comfortable with and will live with--and it is currently law in the United States--why are we trying to change it? If we are eliminating this protection which is currently in the law, recognized by the Department of Justice, why are we eliminating it?
That is my question.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will give the Senator my answer and then yield to anyone. I know we need to wrap this up.
In my opinion, the phrase, ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law,'' we would preserve that service. Simply stated, that language to me is intended to make sure that whatever service is provided in a language other than English, our Federal Government is not disturbed. If you want to disturb it, you would have to come back and do something else.
Mr. DURBIN. If that is not the case, what does this add? What does it change? What does it bring to the law that isn't currently in the law?
Mr. GRAHAM. May I suggest why I think we need to do this and why I support Senator Inhofe. We have gone through a great debate in this country, which is long overdue. What does it mean to be an American? And what role unites us and what divides us? I think it is time for this body to say two things: We will continue to provide services other than English out of a sense of justice and fairness, and we are not going to disturb that because I think there is a goal for that in our society.
But as we debate how to assimilate 11 million people, we need to make it clear that it is the policy of our Government not to change the law but is the goal of our Government to enhance our common language, English. To me, that is a good thing to say because when the demonstrations are in the streets with Mexican flags, they have the right to fly any flag, but some of us have to respond to that. I am supporting the bill, but I am not going to sit on the sidelines and watch demonstrations that destroy national unity. I am trying to bring us all together, and I want the individuals who are here and undocumented to be documented by taking civics classes and taking an English proficiency exam.
Why do we ask them to do that? Why is that part of the pathway to citizenship? We all know if they don't become proficient in English, they will never achieve their own individual value and will be hurting our country. And we are trying to reinforce that without doing it in a way that would deny services already provided in languages other than English. That is why it is important to me. That is why I will vote for it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. INHOFE. I yield.
Mr. DURBIN. First, I thank the Senator for his cooperation. I think we have had a very valuable dialogue, and the Senator from Oklahoma has made some important concessions. But I would like to make sure that, for the RECORD, I understand the intent and language of the amendment which he currently offers.
Has the Senator changed the version which referenced section 161: ``Declaration of official language,'' which shows on page 2 of the amendment?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes, that was changed. It was actually written up--they wrote the word ``national'' in the wrong place. It is, ``Declaration of national language.''
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. May I ask the Senator if he would tell me whether it is his intention to in any way diminish any rights that currently exist under the laws of the United States of America which would provide individuals with materials or services in a language other than English?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think it is very appropriate the Senator asks that question. We have had a chance to discuss that at some length with a large number of people, and I have stood pretty fast to my belief. Now, keep in mind I am one of the few people around here who is not a lawyer, and therefore sometimes that puts me in a better position to understand the law than some of my lawyer friends. But I would say that when we write down, ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law, no person has a right, entitlement, claim,'' et cetera, in the bill, which is the form of the bill that you have seen and that we have all been working on, so my feeling is that language takes care of any problem within the existing law that is on the books.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield, then----
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me ask if it would be all right, if you have a number of questions--I don't mind yielding, but I would just as soon yield on your time.
Mr. DURBIN. Fine. Mr. President, I would like to have the time for the questions and answers count against me.
So would the Senator say for the RECORD, is it your intention by this amendment to diminish any existing rights under the law of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would respond by saying I think the statement stands by itself, speaks for itself. It says, ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law.'' We are a country of laws, and if there is anything that is inconsistent, that is an exception under section 162.
Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. President, that is the problem. This is what it comes down to. This is an easy question to answer: Yes, it is not my intention to diminish any rights under the law given to any person for services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English. If the Senator said yes to that question, it would put a lot of people at ease.
But let me tell you what I am afraid is at stake. In the language which the legal staff has prepared, I am afraid there is more to it. It is apparent that at least some believe you are going further than what you have indicated; that you are trying to diminish existing rights of the law. That is troubling because the rights under law that we are talking about are rights that are over 40 years old, dating back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And if the Senator from Oklahoma wants to make a statement of policy that English is the language of the United States and it is a common and unifying language, then he will have 100 votes in the Senate. It will be an important statement. But when he goes on and adds this other language, this amendment raises questions.
I just gave the Senator a chance to clarify the rest of his language, and he didn't want to do it. I am afraid that is where we are going to have a parting of the ways.
I think it is valuable for us to establish that the English language is common and unifying in America and that success depends on it, and I believe that. As I have said many times on the Senate floor, I am the son of an immigrant. My mother came to this country; her parents struggled to learn English. She spoke both English and Lithuanian. I speak only English today. My life experience is not much different than most.
We had a recent survey that found an interesting statistic. The Pew Hispanic Center documents that about 80 percent of third generation Latinos in the United States speak English as their dominant language. Exactly zero percent speak Spanish as their dominant language. It suggests that what happened in my family is happening with most immigrant families.
So they know the obvious: Success in this country depends on mastering and speaking English. So if the Senator wanted to make that statement, that English is our common and unifying language in this country, we would join him.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me respond.
Mr. DURBIN. I still have my time, and I would like to say this: When I asked him straightforwardly a question as to whether he wanted to diminish the rights of anyone in this country currently under law, which would include Presidential Executive Orders, I might say to the Senator and his legal staff, if he wants to diminish those, he would not give me an affirmative answer which I think would satisfy many on this side of the aisle.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield back to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me first of all say no, it is not my intent, nor is it the intent of this amendment, to do that. This amendment is pretty straightforward. It does say ``unless otherwise authorized or provided by law.'' What that says to me is if there are some of these privileges out there that you believe are not in the law, then I would not be addressing those. I think what you are talking about is a matter of law, but I don't know that. I would rather say if it is a matter of law, we are providing an exception. And I guess I would ask you the question, since I now have the floor, do you believe that some of these rights are entitlements?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I don't know whose time this counts against.
Mr. INHOFE. It is mine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as I said earlier, this is dangerously close to debate in the Senate, and I am glad we are doing it. My feeling is this: When you say: What are you entitled to? Well, we are entitled to be protected from discrimination. That is an entitlement to every American. We are entitled to be protected from discrimination. And the 1964 Civil Rights Act says one of the things you cannot be discriminated against is your national origin, where you were born. We say in America, no, you cannot be discriminated against based on national origin. And based on that provision in the Civil Rights Act, we will provide, when it comes to essential services, appropriate language assistance to help those who are availing themselves of the services.
As I said earlier, in Chicago, that may be Polish or a Filipino dialect. But basically what we have said is, yes, you are entitled not to be discriminated against.
Now, if the Senator wants to wipe away that entitlement, he should make it clear. But I am not sure that he wants to. If he does, I hope he will say so.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor at this point.
Mr. DURBIN. I'll take it on my time. The Senator made it clear. He has two parts of this amendment. The first part is, frankly, an easy part. Is English the common, unifying language of our Nation? The answer is yes. His conclusion is that you can't succeed in America without being English proficient. If that's his amendment, that vote would be 100 to nothing.
It is the second part, the part you called the technical arguments, that we find troublesome. You said, in the course of explaining the amendment, that you didn't want to take away any existing rights of people in law, in courtrooms, for example, or going to vote, and I'm glad to hear that. But I want to ask you directly: Do you want to diminish any of the rights currently available to those living in our country under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin?
Mr. INHOFE. Do I personally want that? No, I don't. This amendment doesn't do that because it makes those exceptions because what you are referring to is the law.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me ask you expressly and specifically, because you did refer to this. This was Executive Order 13166, issued by President Clinton, which implemented the same title of the Civil Rights Act that I referred to. The Executive Order said that agencies of our Government had to make efforts to provide their services and materials to people with limited English proficiency.
Is it your intention with your amendment to, in any way, diminish the responsibilities and rights created by Executive Order 13166?
Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding, I say to the Senator from Illinois, that the courts already have had some interpretations of that which perhaps are not the same as you are stating right now. What the courts have interpreted I stand behind because that means it is law. That is according to my amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. So will the Senator accept an amendment to his amendment which says that:
Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the law of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English?
Mr. INHOFE. You will have an opportunity to have that in your side-by-side amendment that will be voted on after mine. My answer is no because we have already massaged this language. A lot of people are supporting this. If I start changing things now, as you well know, they are going to start peeling off, and I won't have the support I have right now. We will have an opportunity to vote on my amendment. Then we will have an opportunity to vote on whatever language you decide to put in, in your amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Inhofe language in this amendment contains two basic parts. In the first part, we can talk about changing a word or two, but we all basically agree on it. We basically agree that to be successful in America, you must speak English. I imagine there are people on the margins of our society who survive without a command of English, but that is where they will remain. It is rare that a person in America reaches a level of success without a mastery of English. As I go about the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago, where so many people speak many different languages, it is well understood that learning English is the first step toward becoming an American and becoming successful in America. We don't argue about that.
There are different ways to characterize English as our language. I like the characterization of my colleague, Senator Salazar, who characterizes English as ``our common and unifying language.'' It is that; it is our common and unifying language. Senator Inhofe uses the words ``our national language.'' But when you get down to it, there is no argument here about the basic premise. We agree on the basic premise. It is not as if it is just in America. We know that the language of aviation around the world is English. We know that the common universal language in most places on the Internet is English. That is a fact. So when it comes to the first part of Senator Inhofe's amendment and that first part of Senator Salazar's amendment, there is no dispute. If the debate ended there, we would have voted a long time ago. But that is not where the debate ends. Senator Inhofe added several sentences beyond that, which now take us into a legal thicket.
He argues that these are technical issues. They are not technical issues. They are issues about a person's basic rights in America. They are issues that really emanate from landmark legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is not a technicality; it is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. People literally fought and bled and died for the passage of civil rights legislation. Before we casually cast aside some part of the protection of that law, we should think about it long and hard.
I look at the language Senator Inhofe brings to the floor and, on its face, it appears to be easy to accept:
Unless otherwise authorized or provided by law, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform, or provide services or provide materials in any language other than English.
You would think if it is not authorized by law, that means the Government cannot communicate or provide materials in any language other than English. How could that possibly come up? Well, let's take one illustration. I happened to be on the floor the day that Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma came to the floor in the midst of a debate on a judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada. The date was November 12, 2003. Senator Inhofe came to the floor and gave his remarks to the Senate in Spanish. I was impressed. He is proficient in Spanish, and I respect his skills in that language, which I do not share. I didn't understand what he said, but I respected him for being confident enough to come to the floor and express himself in the Spanish language. And then what happened was that the Congressional Record, which is printed every day from our proceedings, included Senator Inhofe's speech in Spanish and his translation in English. They are both part of the RECORD.
But wait. Had Senator Inhofe's amendment been in effect then--the one he wants us to vote for today--it would have been illegal for our government to print the Congressional Record with Senator Inhofe's speech in Spanish. There is no statute which creates the right of any Member to come to the floor and speak in any language. Oh, it happens. Nobody objects to it. They do their best to print those speeches, but there is no law authorizing it. So, if Senator Inhofe's amendment had passed at that time, the speech which he delivered on the floor in Spanish, would not have been allowed to be printed and published by the Government in the Congressional Record.
Is that what we want to achieve? Is that our goal?
Let me give you another practical example. Near this U.S. Capitol is the famous Potomac River. The Washington Post ran a story 6 months ago. It said that drowning deaths on the Potomac River were down dramatically. Last year, for the first time in 15 years, no one drowned in the Potomac in the Washington area. Park Rangers believe they know why: their new signs that warn swimmers and fishermen about the river's strong current and undertow. The new signs are printed in English and in Spanish, the native languages of many new immigrants who use the river to relax with their families or to fish. The Park Service posted the bilingual signs after they noticed that many recent drowning victims were also recent immigrants. So, is making this political statement in the Inhofe amendment so important that we wouldn't want to provide safety for those who are using the Potomac River? It was considered to be a sensible, rational thing to do: print the sign in both languages so people will be warned of the danger.
You have heard the arguments here about the potential of avian flu. Wouldn't we want any dangers relative to avian flu or some other epidemic to be shared in enough languages so that we all would be protected? Yet what Senator Inhofe has done is to create an obstacle for those who are trying to achieve public safety and public health.
Why do we need to do this? Why do we need to change the laws of America? I don't think we do. I think instead we have an option which is much better.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to yield on your time if you have a question.
Mr. INHOFE. I don't have time. We were very generous in giving you time, I would remind you.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will yield for a colloquy for 1 minute, and then I see that the minority leader is here.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, where in this bill does it say you can't put those signs up, or where does it say in this bill that my speech that I made in Spanish would not be able to be included in the Congressional Record?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator asked that question because that is exactly the point of what I am saying. It is because of your language in the amendment that states, ``Unless authorized or provided by law,'' bilingual printing cannot be done, and it would be illegal.
We have done some quick research but there is no statute we have found which says that when Members give speeches on the floor in foreign languages, the government shall print that speech in the foreign language in the Congressional Record. It isn't there. There is no authorization in law for the printing of your remarks in Spanish. And you tell us in the language of your amendment that if not authorized by law, it cannot be done; it is illegal.
The point I am making is that the Senator started with a very positive and important premise, that English is our common and unifying language and that it should be preserved and enhanced by our Government. But the amendment then went too far. I think I know why. I believe what he is really aiming for is an Executive Order by President Clinton. Some on his side want to get rid of that. They don't like that Executive Order because that Executive Order, which is now being followed by our Government as law, says that when it comes to basic Federal services, we will help people who have limited proficiency in English understand their rights and understand their responsibilities. I think that is reasonable. I believe perhaps the Senator from Oklahoma sees it the other way.
I see my leader is here on the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. If the gentleman will yield, colloquy goes two ways. Let me just respond.
Mr. DURBIN. I am sorry, I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, but it is my time. I will conclude by saying that in this situation, I urge my colleagues to take a close look at these amendments. I hope they will consider that the Salazar amendment is really the more positive statement that protects the rights of all Americans. It respects our cultures, but it also makes it clear that we have one common and unifying language in this country, and that is English.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes so that I will be able to yield for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator a question because perhaps he has thought this through and he could help me understand it. I support the President's effort to make the border stronger and safer. What I understood him to say was at least 6,000 National Guardsmen at any one time, rotated every 2 or 3 weeks to accommodate what was their normal training schedule. By my calculation, that means that in the first year over 100,000 National Guardsmen from around the United States will be sent to the border. And in the second year, when half as many are needed, another, say, 50,000. So out of the 400,000 National Guardsmen nationwide--I hope my figure is correct, although I don't know if it is--but is it your understanding that 100,000 to 150,000 will end up on border duty during that period?
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his question. I was going to address his very point. The way that the Border Patrol, the National Guard, and the administration have developed their plan envisions that about one-third of the 6,000 Guardsmen would actually be on the border for longer than the 21 day maximum. My amendment mirrors their plan. It sets forth that two-thirds of the overall personnel will perform their required 21 days of annual training down on the border. That time is time that the Guardsmen committed to when they signed up. The amendment also says that about a third of the force, consisting of command personnel and guardsmen who are necessary for integration purposes, will be down there full time. They will be there full time to ensure some continuity. The personnel who are rotating in will need to have leadership that can organize and who have some institutional memory. The full time personnel can say to the rotating personnel: you need to go here, this is what you will do, and we need you to work with this other group.
During our hearing yesterday--this very issue came up--according to the National Guard the numbers that the President has committed will work. They have said that this mission can be done, that there is absolutely no problem for them to operate in this fashion, considering they will be going through the training anyway. Personnel will have to go through the 2 to 3 weeks of training and this set up will actually improve the training they are getting.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. ENSIGN. I am happy to.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to address this question through the Chair. About 75 percent of the Illinois National Guard units have been activated to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, and some have been on more than one tour of duty. During the course of that, they have left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan a lot of wornout equipment, damaged equipment. Currently our National Guard, in some areas of supplies, like certain trucks, is down to 7 percent of what they need, and nationwide we have been told the National Guard stock of supply and equipment has been depleted to the level of 34 percent of what they need.
Can the Senator from Nevada tell me whether our commitment of the National Guard to the border will also be a commitment to replenish the equipment they will need to serve effectively there and return home and do their job?
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, to address that question, we actually talked about that in yesterday's hearing. It was one of the questions that was asked. What the National Guard is going to do, with the Department of Defense, is take the equipment down there, and it will stay down there. If the Illinois National Guard comes down, they won't come down with their own equipment; they will use the equipment that is there. So it will stay there for the 2 years, for the duration, what they need. So that is going to be paid for separately. It is part of the $1.9 billion the administration had requested, so it does not come out of the normal National Guard budget, it doesn't come out of what we are trying to replenish of the National Guard's that are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those are excellent questions. We have addressed those. We have addressed those as to how the administration policy is going to happen.
This is the last point I will make. This is a critical stopgap, but it is only a stopgap because we can only train about 1,000 Border Patrol agents a year. It was my amendment actually to ramp us up to 10,000 more Border Patrol agents in the intelligence bill last year. We can't do even the 2,000 that bill envisioned, and we certainly can't get to the 10,000 right way. This bill before us needs this if you are going to have the temporary guest worker program. This National Guard is the temporary measure that we need to fill in so we actually secure the borders. 1I appreciate very much the indulgence of the manager of the bill. We look forward to further debate, if people have that. I really appreciate your taking the time to allow us to fit in tonight.
http://thomas.loc.gov/