Secure Fence Act of 2006--Motion to Proceed

SECURE FENCE ACT OF 2006--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - September 21, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the pending bill before S. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This bill, which was approved the House of Representatives last week, would require the Department of Homeland Security to build a 700-mile wall on the United States-Mexican border.

The bill goes further. The bill also provides that we shall start a study as to whether to build a similar wall on our borders with Canada. That, of course, is a much longer border and a challenge which has not really been thought through. The northern border study is part of the bill, along with this new 700-mile wall, or fence, being discussed.

Earlier this year, the Senate spent the better part of 3 months debating immigration. The process began in the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, in early May. We had a series of substantive debates in which we considered dozens of amendments, including several maritime committee meetings on very contentious issues. At the end of the process, we approved a tough, comprehensive bill with a strong bipartisan vote. There was a similar process on the floor of the Senate.

We debated the immigration bill for 1 month. We had over 30 rollcall votes on amendments. It is rare for Congress to devote that much time and energy to one bill. I think that was reflected in the bipartisan bill that we approved. It is far from perfect. It was a compromise. There are sections in that bill I don't support. I voted for it because I thought it was the best effort we could make at that moment to move this process forward.

The Senate bill takes a comprehensive approach that is tuff but fair.

First, we deal with enforcement by improving our border security by increasing manpower and increasing new technology and devising new means to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into America. We would crack down, as well, on employers.

Understand that the magnet which draws those who illegally immigrate to the United States is the opportunity for a better life through work. For most of these people, they come here to take jobs all across our country. I have seen them in my home State of Illinois and Chicago. It is hard to visit a restaurant or hotel without seeing many people there who are working very hard for long hours at low pay, and many of them are undocumented.

We believe that if you are really going to have enforcement work, it isn't just a matter of stopping them at the border; it is a matter of drying up the magnet that draws them: the employment, those who would employ undocumented people. Our bill speaks to that.

The President has said that he supports this concept. I agree with him. We need a tamper-proof ID so that those presenting themselves for employment are clearly identified. Currently, a person shows up with a name, a phony Social Security number, and goes to work. That day has to end.

If you are talking about enforcement, it is not just a matter of what happens on that border--it is a matter of what happens in the workplace in New York, in Chicago, in Los Angeles, and all across America.

This bill which was sent to us by the House does not address the employer sanctions. We know what has happened under the Bush administration. It is rare if ever that an employer is held accountable for hiring illegal aliens. Unless and until we can engage the employment issue with the border security issue, we are going to have a difficult time controlling the flow of illegal immigration.

This bill talks about a fence. It is not the first time it has been brought up. In the comprehensive immigration bill which we passed, there was a provision for constructing a 370-mile, triple-layered fence and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border. I question whether this is going to work. I have my doubts.

Consider just the obvious. Our southern border is more than 2,000 miles long, and we are building 700 miles of fencing or barriers. I have to say that leaves a lot of area uncovered. I guess it is not a leap of imagination to believe that people will find a way to go around this wall, around this fence, or under it. It is going to happen. I think to place all of our confidence in this sort of basic barrier may go too far.

But the provision was in our bill. It was an enforcement provision for the border which included 370 miles of tripled-layered fence and 500 miles of vehicle barriers.

Then, on August 2, the Senate appropriated the money to build it, $1.8 billion for fencing and barriers authorized by the Senate bill. The measure was approved on a strong bipartisan vote of 94 to 3.

Despite my scepticism about the fence, my belief was that this moves us forward. If this fence moves us forward in the debate about comprehensive immigration, I am going to join in that effort even though I start with scepticism about whether this is really going to do everything we are told.

So we are dealing with a fence and barrier that has already been authorized and funds have been appropriated by the Senate. Instead of going to conference with the House and Senate and sitting down and working out their differences between the two bills, the House of Representatives held hearings around the United States, hearings which were designed, I am afraid, to move this issue to the public forefront in not a very positive way; in some respects, a very negative way. In that effort, they came up with the inspiration for a new bill. In other words, they walked away from their earlier bill which dealt with immigration enforcement in very harsh terms, saying that those who were here illegally would be deemed felons, aggravated felons under Federal law, and anyone who helped them would also been charged with the crime.

Now they are off on a new approach--this so-called 700-mile fence approach. It is hard to keep track of what is going on in the House of Representatives when it comes to immigration. It changes almost on daily or weekly bases.

Before they will consider sitting down with the Senate and working out an agreement on a bill, they send us a new bill.

That is what has happened here. I wonder why at a time when we are facing so many serious issues in this country we are engaged in such political posturing when it comes to an issue of this importance.

Wouldn't it have been better for us to spend this week, instead of wasting and burning off the hours on the secure fence bill--the second House immigration bill--focus on a national energy policy, talk about ways that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that Americans can have some security knowing that this economy will grow with good, reliable energy sources, and that we would not be subsidizing those who send oil to the United States and then turn around and use the hundreds of millions of dollars we send to finance our enemies and terrorism?

This is not really about immigration. It is about something else. This is about an effort by the Republican leadership to find just the right issue for an election that is just a few weeks away.

This morning, the New York Times tells us that the American people, when asked, have a new low opinion of Congress. It has been 12 years or more since so few people had a positive view of their Congress. This morning, they reported that 25 percent of the American people have positive feelings about the Congress. When asked why, they said Congress is dominated by special interests; it is dominated by an agenda that has no importance to the lives of most American people; and it seems like all they are doing is political posturing for the next campaign.

Many of those criticisms are sadly true.

This bill has been tied up for the last week and fits right into the category of political posturing.

The earlier immigration bill of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which would have made felons out of many hard-working people and would also have made felons out of many nurses and social workers and clergymen who were trying to help those who are here undocumented--that bill has been abandoned. Now they are trying to find a new bill, a new wedge issue for the November 7 election.

I believe we need stronger enforcement, but we need to be smart in the way we do it.

Let me give you some numbers which will give you an indication of what a smart approach might include.

In the last decade, we have doubled the number of Border Patrol agents that are at our southern border and other borders where people might cross, and they have spent eight times as many hours patrolling the border in the last 10 years and an 800-percent increase in the manhours spent patrolling our borders.

During the same period of time that this dramatic increase in manpower at the border has occurred, the number of undocumented immigrants coming into the United States has doubled.

As Attorney General Gonzales recently noted, ``Some believe we should be focusing solely on border security.'' He said, ``I don't think you can have true security without taking into account the 11 to 12 million who are already here.''

We need to know who they are ..... and take them out of the shadows.

Our bill, our comprehensive bill, sought to deal with this immigration issue in a sensible, smart, tough approach that will deal with enforcement as well as dealing with the reality of those who are here.

Now the House of Representatives, under the control of the President's party, has refused to sit down with the Senate and negotiate in a conference committee. They apparently prefer tough talk to solutions.

Now we have a 700-mile wall that is now being proposed. It keeps going up in the bidding from 300 to 700. Who knows what the next bill will be in preparation for this next election? That is what the bidding war is all about--who can come up with the longest wall.

If we want to solve the problem of illegal immigration, we have to secure our border, strengthen enforcement of our immigration laws, and address the situation of approximately 12 million undocumented people in our country. That is a comprehensive approach.

I hope we will have a chance, though I am doubtful, to offer amendments to this bill. It would be good to return to some of the elements of the earlier bill which had widespread support. Sixty-four Senators voted for the bill, the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration bill. I was one of them. We believe this was a good, bipartisan effort to deal with a very tough problem. We need that kind of comprehensive approach.

That bill included a provision which I will offer as an amendment to this bill, if given an opportunity. It is called the DREAM Act. This is a narrowly tailored, bipartisan measure I have introduced with Senators HAGEL and LUGAR, both Republican colleagues, who have joined me and many Democratic Senators in this bipartisan effort. This gives undocumented students the chance to become permanent residents if they came here as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, no criminal record, will attend college or enlist in the military for at least 2 years.

Currently, our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from pursuing their dreams and fully contributing to the Nation's future. They are honor roll students, star athletes, talented artists, valedictorians, aspiring teachers, doctors, scientists, and engineers. These young people have lived in this country for most of their lives. Their parents brought them here. It is the only home they know. They are assimilated and acculturated into American society. They are American in every sense of the word except for their technical legal status.

They have beaten the odds in their young lives. The high school dropout rate among undocumented immigrants is 50 percent, compared to 21 percent for legal immigrants and 11 percent for native-born Americans. So the odds are against these kids ever graduating from high school. These children we are talking about in this bill, the DREAM Act, have demonstrated the kind of determination and commitment that makes them successful students and points the way to the significant contributions they can make in their lives. These students are tomorrow's teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs. They have the opportunity to make America in the 21st century a success story if their talents can be part of that success.

The DREAM Act would help them. It is not an amnesty. It does not say automatically that they are going to be citizens. It is designed to assist only a select group of them, the very best of the best, young people who have done nothing wrong in their lives, good moral character, finished high school, who then enlist in our military for at least 2 years or pursue a college education. That gives them the chance to earn their way toward citizenship. This offers no incentive for undocumented immigrants to enter the country and requires the beneficiaries to have been in the country for at least 5 years when the bill is signed.

It would repeal a provision of Federal law that prevents individual States from granting instate tuition rates to these students. It would not create any new tuition breaks. It would not force States to offer instate tuition to these students. It is a State decision. Each State decides. It would simply return to States the authority to make that decision.

It is not just the right thing to do, it is a good thing for America. It will allow a generation of immigrant students with great potential and ambition to contribute fully to America.

According to the Census Bureau, the average college graduate earns $1 million more in her or his lifetime than the average high school dropout. This translates into increased taxes and reduced social welfare and criminal justice costs.

There is another way our country would benefit from these thousands of highly qualified, well-educated young people who are eager to be part of America. They want to serve, many of them, in our military. At a time when our military is lowering its standards due to serious recruiting shortfalls, we should not underestimate the significance of these young people as a national security asset.

The Department of Defense has shown increased interest in this bill, understanding that there is a talent pool of these young people who are technically undocumented but want to live in the United States and serve our country. They need that talent. We need that talent as a nation.

On July 10, the Senate Committee on Armed Services held a hearing on the contributions of immigrants to the military. David Chu, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, said the following:

There are an estimated 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented alien young adults who enter the United States at an early age and graduate from high school each year, many of whom are bright, energetic and potentially interested in military service. They include many who have participated in high school Junior ROTC programs. Under current law, these people are not eligible to enlist in the military. If their parents are undocumented or in immigration limbo, most of these young people have no mechanism to obtain legal residency even if they have lived most of their lives here. Yet many of these young people may wish to join the military, and have the attributes needed--education, aptitude, fitness and moral qualifications. In fact, many are High School Diploma Graduates, and may have fluent language skills--both in English and their native language ..... the DREAM Act would provide these young people the opportunity of serving the United States in uniform.

If we are talking about making America more secure

safe, why would we turn our backs on the opportunity for these young people who came to America at an early age, who have beaten the odds by graduating from high school, who have good moral character and want to be part of our future, why would we turn down their opportunity to serve in our military?

The DREAM Act is supported by a broad coalition of the Senate, by religious leaders, advocates across the country, and educators across the political spectrum. Any real and comprehensive solution to the problem of illegal immigration must include the DREAM Act.

The last point I make is this: We are asked regularly here to expand something called an H-1B visa. An H-1B visa is a special visa given to foreigners to come to the United States to work because we understand that in many businesses and many places where people work--hospitals and schools and the like--there are specialties which we need more of.

I can recall Bill Gates coming to meet me in my office. Of course, his success at Microsoft is legendary. He talked about the need for computer engineers and how we had to import these engineers from foreign countries to meet the need in the United States. He challenged me. He said: If you will not allow me to bring the computer engineers in, I may have to move my production offshore, and I don't want to do that.

That is an interesting dilemma. Now put it in the context of this conversation. Why would we tell these young people, who have beaten the odds and shown such great potential, to leave America at this moment and then turn around in the next breath and say we are going to open the gates of America for other foreigners to come in and make our economy stronger? Why aren't we using these young people as a resource for our future? They have been here. They have lived here for a long period of time. They understand America. They are acculturated to America, and they want to make America better.

Instead of looking overseas at how we can lure more people in to strengthen our economy, we need only look right here at home. As Mr. Chu, from the Department of Defense, said there are 50,000 to 65,000 of these students each year. Why would we give up on them when they can be not only tomorrow's soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, but they can be tomorrow's doctors, scientists, and engineers?

If given the opportunity, and I certainly hope I will on this bill, I will offer the DREAM Act. I want my colleagues to join me on a bipartisan basis.

I walk around in the city of Chicago and other places in my State, and a number of young people who would be benefited by this bill come up to me. They tell me stories which are inspiring in one respect and heartbreaking in another--inspiring because some of them, with no help, no financial aid, have made it through college. One of them, a young man I continue to follow with great anticipation, is now working on a master's degree. He wants to go into medical research. He is good. He is a great scientist, a young scientist who wants to make this a better world. He is one of these undocumented kids, now a young man. Why would we give up on him?

These high school students who have worked so hard in neighborhoods and communities where it is very tough to succeed, they turn their backs on crime, drugs, and all the temptations out there and are graduating at the top of their class, they come to me and say: Senator, I want to be an American; I want to have a chance to make this a better country. This is my home. They ask me: When are you going to pass the DREAM Act? I come back here and think: What have I done lately to help these young people?

We can do something. It is not for me; it is not for the Senate; it is for this country. Let's take this great resource and let's use it for our benefit as a nation. We will be a stronger and better nation if we do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://thomas.loc.gov/