Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2006

Mr. President, as I traveled across all 67 counties of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, almost to a person my constituents understand that America is not controlling our borders. From Berks to Butler, from Wayne to Westmoreland and Erie to Philadelphia, and across all income bracket and regardless of race, thousands of people tell me everywhere I go that we have to address our border security now. More than that, they tell me we must not reward or give preferential treatment to illegal aliens whose first step on our soil was a violation of our laws. They are clear, they do not want amnesty.

And I hear from all the talking heads and think tank wonks about how our Nation is a nation of immigrants. Well, obviously, except for the Native Americans, we are all immigrants from somewhere, and I am no exception.

My grandfather made so many sacrifices to give my family the opportunities we have all had. He left his family back in Riva de la Garda, Italy, to come to America and make a better life for them. He worked in the Pennsylvania coal mines and met the legal requirements to bring over my grandmother and my dad to Pennsylvania but that meant 5 years away from his family to earn the right to bring them over. Yes, immigrants are more than welcome in America, and they have made great incredible contributions to our society--but they have done so legally.

My family and millions of others have lived the American dream of finding good paying jobs, better education and safe environments for our children. The key is that it can and must be done legally. The foundation for the American dream must be built on the solid cornerstone of the rule of law, not the leaky sieve that characterizes our current borders.

This immigration crisis has been caused by decades of flawed amnesty policies that have left our borders porous and dangerously undermanned. The public is understandably frustrated that in the post-9/11 world we live in where our national security depends on our border security--we still do not know who is coming into our country, where they are from, and what they are doing here. I share their frustration and cannot for the life of me understand why my colleagues continue to put partisanship and posturing over our national security.

The 9/11 Commission stated in the preface of its report that ``[i]t is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country.'' Unfortunately, many of my Senate colleagues do not think this is so obvious. Well, it is obvious to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who, in applying for an antigang grant, said that with the influx of illegal immigrants to the 222 Corridor that ``the Latin Kings, Bloods, NETA and lately MS-13, are recruiting or fighting with local gangs for control of the drug markets. Violence is a daily by-product.''

The evidence is clear that the current immigration crisis poses an immediate threat to our communities--gang violence, drug trafficking, murders, rapes, and the burdensome costs shouldered by our public education, health, and housing systems. Just last week the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested more than 100 criminals, fugitive aliens, and other immigration status violators living throughout Pennsylvania--from Philadelphia to York to Pittsburgh. Among those arrested were individuals convicted of sex offenses, burglary, larceny, robbery, criminal trespass, weapons violations, narcotics violations, aggravated assault, shoplifting, fraud, and resisting arrest.

It is time--well, frankly it is well past time--that we put first things first--we must secure our Nation's borders now.

Our friends in the House passed an immigration bill that understands the urgency of securing our borders, but it is impractical--both in enforcement practice and in politics. And then the ``comprehensive'' Senate bill did exactly the wrong thing--offering illegal immigrants amnesty, providing them Social Security benefits, relieving them of tax burdens Americans face, and giving them better worksite employment rights than American citizens enjoy. It was the wrong bill at the

wrong time and failed to pass the one real test of securing our borders.

Yet as I travel the State, it is clear to me that many people do not know what all is in the Senate bill. That lack of information is dangerous for our national security but even more dangerous to our Pennsylvania jobs, tax revenue, education system and social welfare costs.

So let me start by reminding you what is wrong with S. 2611.

It does not protect American workers. In fact, Americans--U.S. citizens--can be put out of work--or their wages reduced--by the employment of the guest foreign workers.

It gives social security benefits for illegal work or stolen identities. Why does this matter? Ask my constituent--Laurie Beers--who had her Social Security number stolen by an illegal immigrant. Laurie is a hard-working hospice nurse who is constantly traveling. Recently, after Laurie learned that her information had been stolen and misused she did all of the right things--contacted the Federal Trade Commission to report the identity theft, called the identity theft hotline, contacted the three credit bureaus to obtain copies of her credit report, contacted the FBI and the Secret Service to report this breach of trust. In response, Laurie received letters confirming she was a victim of identity theft. When she contacted the Internal Revenue Service, she was told that the man using her Social Security number is an illegal immigrant. After talking to the FBI and the Secret Service, they confirmed that the person is an illegal immigrant. And this illegal immigrant has been working for an employer in New York and has even been filing income tax returns on Laurie's Social Security number.

Laurie is understandably upset that the IRS has known for 3 years that someone else has been using her social security number but did nothing to notify her or to stop the theft of her identity. Unfortunately, the employer--Adecco--will not cooperate with Laurie. In fact, Laurie reports that they have been downright nasty. Laurie is lucky in that her credit has not been destroyed, but she has been damaged. The person who stole her identity wrote a bad check to J. C. Penneys and now Wal-Mart will not accept Laurie's checks--something that will show up on her credit report.

That bill forgets the ``guest'' part of ``guest worker'' as the ``guest worker program'' is neither temporary nor based on the need for non-American workers.

It requires Mexican ``cooperation'' to protect our own borders.

This bill provides amnesty, but tries to calls it ``earned legalization.'' Proponents of the bill say that this is not amnesty, and that an alien has to meet certain conditions; but do they really? Illegal aliens in the amnesty program are supposed to pay a fine of $2,000. However, that $2,000 fine only has to be paid ``prior to adjudication,'' or up to 8 years from now. And they get a benefit Americans would love to have. Under the bill, illegal aliens only have to pay 3 of their last 5 years in back taxes. They get an option of which years, while Americans do not get that choice.

It give employers a free pass for hiring illegal aliens. The bill says that employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status ``shall not be subject to civil and criminal liability for employing such unauthorized aliens.'' Unbelievable.

The bill will dramatically raise spending and increase welfare costs. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, estimate that this bill would increase direct spending by $16 billion over the 5 years and $48 billion over 10 years. But what about all of the entitlement programs such as welfare? Illegal immigrants are currently ineligible for most federal welfare benefits, but when you give citizenship as this bill does those currently here illegally will be eligible for welfare programs. If just 60 percent of those currently here illegally get citizenship--the ballpark figure of the number that have been here more than 5 years--Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation estimates that welfare costs will increase by more than $11 billion per year.

However it may be even more important to note what the Senate bill did not do. We know that we must secure our borders, so my colleagues and I tried to add a provision to require a certification that the borders are secure before granting legal status to any alien who entered the United States illegally. I was not only surprised but extremely disappointed that our efforts to do this right--to secure our borders first before dealing with the 11 million illegal aliens in our country--failed. So that bill continues to put the cart before the horse--and continues to hold our national security hostage to a ``comprehensive solution.''

For this reason, in June I introduced my own bill--the Border Security First Act, S. 3564. My bill takes a first-things-first approach. This first step cannot, and should not, wait for a ``comprehensive'' solution. When we secure our borders--and only then-- we can address the remaining illegal immigration-related challenges with the apposite remedies.

Despite consensus on all of the border security provisions in my bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not allowed us to move forward that legislation. Nonetheless, this week the Senate is working to send to the President a bill to secure our southern border with 700 miles of at least double-layer fencing. I am glad we are here today to take a real first step--admittedly a modest step but at least a first step--toward demonstrating to the American public that we have heard you, that we understand we need to address border security first.

And the American public has been clear, but let me focus on my State for a minute. In Pennsylvania, my constituents have been clear--80 percent oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, and 84 percent support building a fence on the southern border. Stop the flood and do not give amnesty. That is the message, colleagues. It cannot be plainer. We must listen and put America's border security first, reject amnesty, and pass this bill.

Border security cannot wait for more hearings, debate, and compromise; it must be done right, and it must start now. This bill is a good first step.

Mr. President, this year the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill. Senators and staff worked tirelessly to negotiate and pass that bill, which was a comprehensive, fair solution that respected human dignity, and recognized the need for strong border security. The response we got from the majority in the House of Representatives was obstruction. Rather than proceed to a conference to try to hammer out a meaningful solution, the House leadership ignored our calls to proceed and spent the month of August holding sham hearings on the Senate's bill meant only to undermine the work we completed and inflame anti- immigrant passions. Now the House leadership, enabled by the majority leader, asks us to forget all about the efforts we made and take up and pass a narrow, unbalanced bill to help their election chances.

If there is any doubt that this effort by the majority leader is political, consider the timing of this bill. On September 21st of this year, just as the majority leader brought this bill to the floor, the Department of Homeland Security announced the beginning of its Secure Border Initiative with the award of a multi-year, billion-dollar contract to the Boeing Corporation to begin work on a state-of-the-art border security system. Yet, at the same time the Department of Homeland Security tries to secure the border with 21st Century technology, the Senate majority seeks to duplicate and confuse those efforts with a plan straight out of the 18th century. Despite the numerous problems in that agency, it is still a better idea to let them proceed with the Secure Border Initiative than it is to throw even more taxpayer money at a redundant and inferior project.

The majority leader seeks to pass this legislation--with little debate and no amendments--to pander to the anti-immigration crowd. I understand that the Republican majority wants to leave this session with something they can take with them and hold up as a Republican victory for national security, but true security means more than hiding behind walls. We should be unwilling to sacrifice our chances at comprehensive reform to appease the isolationist faction in this country. Voting against this bill is not a vote against national security; it is a vote in favor of the comprehensive bill the Senate already passed.

Regrettably, this bill also contains a requirement for a study to be conducted on the necessity and feasibility of a barrier on the Canadian-American border. I have filed an amendment to strike this study, but the majority leader, as is his practice when bringing up controversial bills to score political points, has obstructed Democratic Senators from offering amendments to improve this bill. To think that we would even consider engaging in this type of unilateral behavior is mind-boggling. Have we learned nothing from the Bush-Cheney administration's go-it-alone strategy? As a Senator from a northern border state, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for us to engage our neighbors in a cooperative manner when it comes to security. If we were to pass this legislation, we would send a message to our Canadian allies that we don't trust their ability to achieve security and we would ignore the fact that border security is in both of our best interests. We will achieve much more by working respectfully and cooperatively with the Canadian government than we will by conducting studies as to whether we should wall off one of our most valuable allies.

Another deeply troubling aspect of this bill is the virtually unlimited grant of authority to the Department of Homeland Security to ``take all actions . . . necessary and appropriate'' to secure the country's border. The bill's grant of authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security lacks any boundaries--any delineation of where such authority ends. It would abdicate congressional authority and delegate, with no intelligible principle, unlimited power to an executive agency to achieve broad goals, for which the method of achievement is left undefined. Recall that this is the same agency that was responsible for the utter failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina. We are still coming to grips with the fallout from that disaster, which was made worse by the administration's incompetence during the storm, and its continuing failures to curb contracting abuses that have slowed the reconstruction. People along the gulf coast continue to suffer as a result of the administration's incompetence, and we are here debating whether to embark on yet another billion-dollar contracting folly. This is a disgrace.

This week, the U.S. inspector general for Iraq reconstruction released a report on a $75 million project to build the Baghdad Police College, which the inspector general called ``the most essential civil security project in the country.'' In his report, the inspector general called the project a ``disaster'' and said ``the truth needs to be told about what we didn't get for our dollar from Parsons,'' the contractor responsible for the debacle. For $75 million in taxpayer funds, the American people and the Iraq police forces got a building that is currently uninhabitable due to substandard workmanship, and which may have to be demolished.

When the Bush administration proves that it cannot even ensure that one of the most critical aspects of Iraq reconstruction is done competently, I shudder to think about the potential abuses that could come along with the building of 700 miles of fence. At the rate

that this administration's crony contractors are performing, I have to wonder if a fence ever could get built that didn't have gaping holes in it. Before we hand over even more authority to the Bush-Cheney administration to create yet another opportunity for their crony contractors to rip off the American people, maybe we should actually conduct some oversight and demand some sorely needed accountability.

Groups from all over this country, from all sectors of our society have weighed in against the building of this fence. From religious leaders to immigration advocates, from environmental organizations to trade associations, from women's rights organizations to academics; opposition to this last-minute, cobbled-together-proposal is widespread. It is clear to me that the idea of turning our country into a fortress is an idea that many Americans view as contrary to our values and our heritage, and I will stand with them in opposition to this bill.

The proposed footprint of this fence will trench through the sovereign territory of the Tohono O'odham Nation in Arizona, who will be precluded from any involvement in the project. Chairwoman Vivian Juan-Sanders of the Tohono O'odham Nation wrote Members of Congress urging legislators to rethink this proposal before we decide to significantly impair a fragile environment and a long-developed working relationship between the O'odham Nation and the United States government to improve border security. We would do well to listen to the concerns of those whom this bill will affect most.

Secretary Chertoff has said the border fencing provisions contained in the Senate's comprehensive immigration bill are what the department needs to secure our borders. During our debate on comprehensive immigration reform, Republican Senators held out Secretary Chertoff's desire for the 370 miles of fence as justification for supporting that amendment. Those same Senators who spoke so forcefully about the need for 370 miles of fencing now are saying we need more, nearly twice as much. It seems clear now that the arguments from those Senators meant very little.

For those who fear that voting against this bill will allow them to be viewed as ``soft'' on national security, remember that this body already passed a bill that contained provisions for a border fence, along with many other significant security measures. The American people are smart enough to understand what is going on here, and I am confident that the American people are sick and tired of being scared into swallowing every irresponsible proposal put forth by this Republican Congress under the guise of national security. Yesterday, a majority of this body voted to erode key elements of our Constitution beyond recognition, and passed a bill that I am certain we will come to regret. If we pass this fence legislation, we will continue this downward spiral of reactionary, fear-driven legislating. It is time for us to stand up against those who seek to corrupt the underpinnings of our democracy. I have had enough, and I suspect that a majority of the American people have had enough.

We need to stop and think about the mark a fence like this will make on our character as a nation. Once this fence is built, it will be very difficult to go back, and we will have taken a step down a road that I do not think a civilized and enlightened nation should travel. In a country on the cutting-edge of technology, with a history of legendary ingenuity, and driven by innovators of the highest caliber, we can do better: we can secure our borders through human innovation, technology, and vigilance. When we approach our immigration situation in a comprehensive manner, we will see how unnecessary this wall is. When we achieve comprehensive reform, rather than piecemeal false solutions, we will realize the security we need. Long after the political and cultural storms over immigration pass, this cobbled-together fence will remain an ugly scar, and will serve as a reminder of a very poor decision made out of fear rather than reason. Rather than strength, this fence will symbolize weakness and a lack of confidence in ourselves. I will vote against this bill, and I hope other Senators join me in rejecting this blatant and costly political stunt.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed the first 5 minutes and Senator Salazar from Colorado take the second 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act, and to express my disappointment that the majority leader has decided to prevent Senators from offering relevant amendments. I have an amendment, which is germane postcloture, which simply provides the

Department of Homeland Security with discretion regarding the use and placement of fencing along our border.

As a Senator who represents a border State, I understand the frustration communities are facing due to the inability of the Federal Government to secure our Nation's borders. Illegal immigration is a serious problem and we do need to do a better job of addressing this issue.

The Senate has passed a comprehensive immigration bill aimed at improving security along our borders and at reforming our immigration laws. Although this bill isn't perfect, it is a step in the right direction. I was very disappointed that the leadership in the House refused to appoint conferees, and instead decided to hold hearings around the country to stir up discontent rather than to seek solutions.

The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill. The House has passed a bill. We should have convened a conference committee and tried to work out the differences between these bills. The failure to at least make a good-faith effort at coming to an agreement is unacceptable.

With regard to the specifics of the Secure Fence Act, I do believe that there are locations along our border where fencing makes sense. For example, I support the $1.2 billion that is in the 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fencing, infrastructure, and technology, and I voted to provide $1.8 billion for the Army National Guard to build fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border as part of the Defense Appropriations bill. In addition, over the last several years I have secured millions of dollars of funding for fencing and vehicle barriers specifically for New Mexico.

However, we need to be smart about security. Walls may make good sound bites in political ads, but the reality is that the individuals charged with securing our borders have consistently stated that they are only part of the solution and that there are better and more cost- effective ways to provide for border security.

As Ralph Basham, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, stated earlier this year in a response to a question about the proposal to build 700 miles of double-layered fencing: ``It doesn't make sense, it's not practical.'' He went on to say that what we need is an appropriate mix of technology, infrastructure, and personnel.

Secretary Chertoff has voiced similar concerns, and has consistently maintained that securing our borders will require a much more comprehensive approach than simply building fences.

Unfortunately, the bill, as currently drafted, does not provide the Department of Homeland Security with the discretion they need to determine the most appropriate means to secure the border. It ties their hands with regard to the use and placement of fencing.

Under current law, the Department of Homeland Security already has the legal authority to build the fences that it needs, and I do not think we should be mandating over 700 miles of fencing in specific locations at a cost of millions of dollars per mile unless we know that this is something that DHS believes it is the best way to enhance security.

This bill micromanages and mandates specifically where DHS must build fencing. For example, with regard to New Mexico, the bill states that a fence must be built ``extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, NM, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, TX.'' There hasn't been any local input regarding this specific location and I haven't received any indication from DHS that they believe that this is the best place to build a fence.

To the contrary, in discussions during one of the southwest New Mexico Border Security Task Force meetings, the point was raised by local security officials that the location of the proposed double- layered fencing in the bill is in the wrong place.

The bill also mandates fencing in some areas where we just spent millions of dollars per mile to build vehicle barriers. According to DHS, it costs approximately $4.4 million for a single layer of fencing per mile. The bill we are debating today mandates double-layer fencing, which adds up to about $6.6 billion for the 730 miles of fencing required under the bill. If we are going to spend billions of dollars to place a fence along over one-third of our southern border, we should at least ensure that it is in the right location and that DHS can make necessary adjustments in the interest of securing our borders.

To this end, I hoped to offer an amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of Homeland Security has the ability to modify the placement and use of the fencing mandated under this bill, if the Secretary determines that such use or placement of the fencing is not the best way to achieve and maintain operational control over the border. I strongly believe that this is a reasonable amendment that ensures that DHS has the flexibility it needs to alter this proposal if it doesn't advance our overall security strategy.

Let me be clear, I believe we should do what it takes to secure our borders. I have consistently worked to secure increased funding for vehicle barriers, surveillance equipment, and additional Border Patrol agents. But I also believe we should do it in the most effective way, both from a security standpoint and in terms of costs.

I also intended to offer an amendment that would have provided border law enforcement agencies with much needed relief in addressing border- related criminal activities. Specifically, the amendment would have authorized $50 million a year in funding to help departments purchase new equipment and hire additional officers. This legislation has wide bipartisan support and has passed the Senate on two occasions. However, most recently, the majority party removed this bill from the 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. If the majority party wants to address security issues, I stand ready to do so. Unfortunately, it appears that they are more concerned with political grandstanding than crafting substantive border security policies.

I strongly believe that Senators should have an opportunity to offer amendments and improve the bill. Regrettably, the majority leader has used technical procedural rules to prevent Senators from doing so. I cannot vote for this legislation without being afforded the opportunity to offer my amendments and fix this flawed bill.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer this amendment prior to final passage on this bill.

Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that I think it is unfortunate that we cannot make a commonsense change in this bill to make this a workable piece of legislation. It could pass this Senate with 100 votes if, in fact, this amendment were adopted--at least as far as I am concerned it likely would. The fear that the purpose of this bill is to get a bill to the President that has the word ``fence'' in the title so that the people can go out and campaign on it in the next 4 or 6 weeks, that is not good government. That is not a good result, policywise, for this country. I, unfortunately, will be compelled to vote against the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on May 17 of this year, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that contains a real solution to the immigration crisis in this country. S. 2611 was passed with strong bipartisan support. In a Congress that has been marred by partisan politics, the success of this bill--this truly bipartisan compromise-- was a breath of fresh air: an achievement to be proud of.

What has happened now, however, is something to be ashamed of. Once again, politics has hijacked policy. Knowing they cannot go home without taking some action to address immigration, Republicans in Congress have decided that saving their seats is more important than securing the borders.

You might wonder how we got here--when the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform back in May and the House passed an enforcement only bill in December 2005. Once again, the answer is politics. Rather than moving to conference to work out some sort of compromise on these bills, Republicans in the House traveled around the country holding 60 one-sided hearings under the guise of gathering evidence.

This was not a good-faith effort to create effective policy. It was a stalling tactic used to run out the clock on comprehensive reform. That kind of political gamesmanship will not work on me.

Everyone under the sun is for fencing on the border. A fence is an important part of comprehensive reform. I supported an amendment to the comprehensive reform bill that authorized 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border. And I supported $1.8 billion in funding for the construction of that fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers. I supported construction of this fence because I believe that it is a critical part of comprehensive immigration reform.

But no one in a million years thinks this is the answer. No one in the world thinks Congress should pass this fig leaf and call it a day. If you address the reasons why immigrants come into our country--their ability to find work with a relatively small chance of getting caught-- as well as how they come in, then increased fencing makes much sense. Fencing alone simply cannot work.

You don't have to take my word for it. Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona, a border State where much of the illegal border crossings occur, said this about the fence proposal:

You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot

ladder . . . That's the way the border works.

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

Trying to gain operational control of the borders is

impossible unless our enhanced enforcement efforts are

coupled with a robust Temporary Guest Worker program and a

means to entice those now working illegally out of the

shadows into some type of legal status. . . . [E]ven a well-

designed, generously funded enforcement regimen will not work

if we don't change the immigration and labor laws that

regulate how would-be workers can come to the United States.

What he is saying is that only comprehensive immigration reform, such as S. 2661, will actually fix our immigration problem.

And, you know what? His former boss, the President of the United States, would agree. Speaking in the Oval Office just days before the Senate passed S. 2611, the President said:

An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive

because all elements of this problem must be addressed

together, or none of them will be addressed at all.

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

For [our] Secure Border initiative to be fully effective,

Congress will need to change our immigration laws to address

the simple laws of supply and demand that fuel most illegal

migration and find mechanisms to bring legal workers into a

regulated, legal Temporary Worker Program, while still

preserving national security.

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

We need a comprehensive immigration reform that provides

additional resources for border security, establishes a

robust interior enforcement program and creates a temporary

worker program.

A vote cast in favor of this fence--in the absence of comprehensive reform--is a vote cast in favor of a piecemeal approach that we know will fail, is a vote cast against comprehensive immigration reform. That is what this vote is about. As my friend Senator Specter, said, voting for the Secure Fence Act will undermine our chance to enact comprehensive reform. He should know. He is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Secretary of Homeland Security has not asked for the amount of fencing provided for in this bill. Although the bill does not authorize a specific amount of fencing, it does dictate exactly where the fencing should be put up. Some people believe the bill authorizes 730 miles of fencing, but Customs and Border Protection, CBP, however, estimates that it will require 849 miles of fencing to get the job done.

We can't even estimate the amount of fencing based on funding levels because the bill contains no specific funding authorization. We do know, however, that it will be expensive. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the cost of a single layer of fencing to be $4.4 million a mile and vehicle barriers to $2.2 million. Because double fencing requires extra money for building all-weather roads, the total estimate from the Department of Homeland Security is $6.6 billion, $9 million a mile.

There are many other things that we could do with that kind of money. We could hire, train, and equip more Border Patrol agents. We could purchase more detention beds to end our unfortunate ``catch and release'' policy. We could place more port-of-entry inspectors and canine detection teams in the field. We could invest in new technologies for border protection, or in an interoperable communications system for the Nation's first responders. But no, Congress would rather punt on the tough decisions and dodge the real debate. What a disgrace.

I oppose this failure of the Senate to do its job and live up to its responsibility. I sincerely hope that this vote does not signify the beginning of the end of comprehensive immigration reform as I fear it does.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to explain why I voted against limiting debate on the Secure Fence Act of 2006 when that vote occurred last night.

In large measure my decision to vote against cloture was procedural. This Senate has had no opportunity to debate and amend the bill before us today. There are some very important amendments that our colleagues would have like to offer which now they cannot.

Those who do not understand Senate procedure might ask, how could that be possible? After all, hasn't this bill been the pending business of the Senate off and on for 6 days?

Let me explain. The Senate majority leader has, as is his right, used Senate procedures to block Senators from offering or voting on amendments. He has done what is called filling the amendment tree. Until the Senate voted last night to limit debate on this legislation, no vote was taken on any amendment to this bill. Now that cloture has been invoked, many otherwise pertinent and important amendments are no longer in order to this bill.

Unfortunately, that has been the pattern of conduct with respect to this legislation and others in this Congress. This bill was rushed through the House of Representatives on September 14. There were no Senate hearings on the matter, no committee input into the content of this bill. That is not the way this Senate ordinarily does business, and it is certainly not the best way to address legislation that is supposed to be improving our Nation's security .

The Senate already had a very serious and responsible debate on the subject of border security in the context of its deliberations of comprehensive immigration reform. We spent 9 days debating many amendments on that bill, including amendments related to the construction of fences along the U.S.-Mexico border. The bill ultimately adopted by the Senate provides for 370 miles of fencing in the most vulnerable high-traffic areas along the U.S.-Mexican border. That is what the administration requested and recommended. It also contained a very important requirement that Federal authorities first consult with those who will be most affected by construction of such a fence--relevant local, State, and Federal agencies on both sides of the border. I supported that legislation.

Why is it that the Senate is now being asked to consider a far less comprehensive approach to securing our country? Does anyone really believe that by simply building a fence, adding physical barriers, lights, cameras, and sensors along 730 miles of our southern border, we are somehow going to make our Nation secure? Do we really believe we can be secure without the cooperation of other governments, most especially our immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico? And do we really believe that by unilaterally putting up barriers on our southern border and contemplating doing the same on the northern border, we are strengthening the will of Canada or Mexico to give us that cooperation?

Is the next step going to be building fences along the remaining 1,300 miles of our southern border and the more than 3,000 miles of our northern border? At what cost? The Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of the current fence proposal at $3.2 million per mile of fence. Other estimates are even higher--$10 million per mile for some stretches of the fence. When you add in annual maintenance, the cost of the fence could exceed $1 billion. So are we prepared to spend another $5 billion to $6 billion or so to construct an additional 4,300 miles of fencing to complete the job?

In the meantime our immigration system is broken. More than 10 million undocumented aliens live among us but at the same time outside the legal structures of our Government creating additional economic and national security challenges which the comprehensive immigration bill passed by the Senate responsibly sought to address. The pending bill does not.

The House and Senate passed very different legislation related to comprehensive immigration reform and enhanced border security. The President endorsed the Senate-passed measure. What would usually be the next step in the legislative process would be for the House and Senate conferees to meet to reconcile the differences between the two bills. But that is not what has happened in this case.

Rather, the Republican leadership, in an effort to score political points, has rushed through this very minor bill authorizing the construction of fences on the southern border and mandating a study of the advisability of doing so on our northern border. They have blocked any serious debate or amendments to the pending matter, and once final passage occurs they will declare that our Nation is now secure.

That is why I felt strongly last night that we ought to have a real debate on the challenges to our Nation's security and consider relevant amendments that could address those challenges rather than rushing to judgment on the very simplistic and costly approach called for in this bill.

Mr. President, we do our citizens a real disservice when we let election year politics get in the way of the peoples business.

Unfortunatey, it will have to be left to a later date to do what would really enhance our Nation's security; namely, enact legislation to fix our broken immigration system.