Secure Fence Act of 2006

Mr. President, I would like to make some comments on this legislation and ask that I be notified after 8 minutes.

Mr. President, we are indeed a nation of immigrants. We will always have immigrants coming to our country, and they have enriched our Nation in so many different ways. It is time for us, however, to recognize that the policies we have adopted as a Nation are not working; that the law that we as Americans respect so greatly is being made a mockery of; the system is in shambles, and the American people are very concerned about it--as they rightly should be. I believe public officials are coming to understand the gravity of the problem after the American people have led them at last to that event.

For the last 30 or 40 years, the American people have been right on this subject. They have asked for a lawful system of immigration. They have asked for a system of immigration that serves the interests of the United States of America. And they have expressed continual concern about the illegality that is ongoing. Frankly, the politicians and Government officials have not been worthy of the good and decent instincts and desires of the American people.

Finally, I think those voices are being heard today.

We want to talk about the House bill that is on the floor of the Senate today. We are asking that this legislation be considered by the Senate. The majority leader has had to file for cloture because apparently some in this body do not even want to consider this legislation. They do not want to talk about it, push it away through surreptitious legerdemain. They want to figure out a way to undermine whatever legislation has been passed and make sure nothing ever gets done. That has been the problem. I hate to say it. We have gone again and again, and we have promised we are going to do something and we tell the American people we are going to do this and we are going to do that. But they are not ignorant, they know we have not done anything, except for the last few months we began to take a few steps that had some significance. But for the last 40 years we have basically had a system driven by illegality that is not worthy of the American people, not worthy of our heritage of law, and it must end.

Let me tell you what happened in the Senate about the fencing issue. Five months ago, May 17, my colleagues, by a vote of 83 to 16, after talking to their constituents, I submit, approved my amendment to mandate the construction of at least 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southwest border. That totals 870 miles of physical barriers, either a fence or a vehicle barrier. Admittedly, that was a strong vote in this body, indicating that fencing on the southern border is and should be a part of our plan to recapture a legal system of immigration in America. It remains one of our important priorities.

On August 2, my colleagues, this time, by a vote of 93 to 3, voted to fund the construction of those miles of fencing and barriers on the DOD appropriations bill as part of the National Guard effort at the border. Today we will vote again. I expect and hope that the Senate will have the votes for cloture so we can move forward with this bill and not have it obstructed from even being debated in the Senate. The miles of fencing contained in this bill are not that different from what the Senate had already voted for, 93 to 3 to fund this year.

The Senate has already voted to fund them, and we are moving forward. This bill simply requires--the House bill that has been passed by the other body--that more of those miles be fencing in designated areas.

I will make this point: We are not there yet. Just because we have had these votes, just because the House has voted for fencing, just because the Senate, by an overwhelming vote, has authorized fencing, we have not begun to construct that yet. We have to get the money, and we have to get a final bill. The amendment I offered--that passed 83 to 16--was part of the comprehensive immigration bill. That bill is not going to become law. That whole bill is not going to become law. So if we are going to commence now to build a barrier on the border, we need to pass this legislation that actually authorizes it. So don't go back home and say I voted for it, but I didn't vote for this bill. This bill is going to determine whether we actually do something and we authorize it and direct how it is to be done, not your previous vote.

That is what has been happening. We have always said we have had these votes, but when the dust settled we never made it law and never made it reality. I urge my colleagues to understand that. Without this legislation we are not going to get there in the way you previously voted, and everybody needs to understand that.

Let me tell you a little bit about what is in the legislation. The majority leader summed it up correctly. I appreciate his leadership and his strong support from the beginning for sufficient border barriers. Majority Leader Frist is committed to a good and just solution of the immigration problem in America, but he has come to understand that we have to take steps and do some things, and one of them is fencing.

This is what this bill will do. It will establish operational control of the border. Most people think we ought to have that now but we do not. We do not have operational control of the border. So not less than 18 months after the enactment of this bill, the Department of Homeland Security must take all actions necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control of the border. Isn't that what we want? Isn't that what we have been asking for, for 30 years?

Within 1 year of enactment, and annually thereafter, the Secretary must report to Congress and to the American people on the progress made toward achieving operational control of the border. We are not going to just pass a bill this time and forget it. We are going to have some reports and some analysis so we can monitor whether we are being successful.

Operational control under the legislation includes systematic surveillance

of the international land and maritime borders through the use of personnel and technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar, and cameras. Those are all going to be part of any effective system. We know that. We are not opposed to that. But don't let anybody tell you only those things will make the system work. They will not.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent illegal entry of aliens and to facilitate access to international land and maritime borders by the Customs and Border Protection Agency are important. The bill further defines operational control as the prevention of unlawful entry into the United States, including entry by terrorists, unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and contraband. Second, the bill extends the current requirement for border fencing in San Diego, requiring that fencing be installed by 2008 through several urban areas. It mentions those. All the fencing in the bill is focused on the heavily trafficked areas on the southwest border. None of the fencing extends further than 15 miles outside high trafficking areas.

Let me just say this: The system that we have today is failing so badly that last year we apprehended 1.1 million people entering into this country illegally. Tell me that is a functional system.

By sending in the National Guard, by building these barriers, by adding to the number of agents, each one of those steps will help send a message throughout the world that we are not wide open, that our borders are going to be enforced. You should not come illegally. You should wait in line and come legally.

Those are facts that I think all of us need to consider as we evaluate this legislation.

Mr. President, I see the Democratic leader here, Senator Reid. I know his day is busy. I will be pleased to yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I thank the Democrat leader and his citing of that report. I look forward to reading it.

The reason that is important, this so-called comprehensive reform bill that actually passed the Senate, with a substantial number of no votes, is nothing more than an extension of the current failed system. It is not a comprehensive reform of immigration at all.

We had a hearing last week at my request. We had some of the best minds in America on immigration. They said our present system is completely ineffectual. I think that is fair way to summarize what they said.

They all spoke favorably of the Canadian plan, the Australian plan, and other plans being developed by developing nations around the world. It makes every sense that we do that. I am looking forward to analyzing that report. I am confident it will be further evidence that business as usual in immigration must end.

Next year we need to come forward--and I will commit to working with my colleagues--and have a real dialog on what immigration should be for America. The seminal expert in America, Professor George Borjas, himself an immigrant, at the John F. Kennedy School at Harvard, has written the most authoritative and best-known book on immigration, ``Heaven's Door.'' He just testified at our hearing last week. He has said in his book and in his testimony, fundamentally, America needs to ask this question: Are you crafting an immigration policy that serves your national interests?

If that is what we are doing, then he has some ideas that help us do that. But that is not what we have been doing. We have never had a discussion of the Canadian plan that gives preference to people with education. We have never discussed the Canadian plan that gives preference to people who already speak English. We have not discussed the system in Canada that gives preferences to people who bring business investment or have skills that are important in the workplace.

Isn't that what a rational nation would do? This bill that passed the Senate is fatally flawed. We need to start over completely. I believe, that report will validate the things I just mentioned.

Of course, let me say to all of our colleagues, no one suggests that building a fence is the end to the problem. Mr. T.J. Bonner, head of the Border Patrol Agents Association, testified at our committee. He said there are two things we need to do: We need to strengthen the border and eliminate the magnet of the workplace by cracking down on illegal hiring in the workplace.

The Senator from Nevada, the Democratic leader, is correct. We have seen some reduction in the numbers being apprehended. I hope that indicates we are seeing a reduction in those attempting to enter the country. I believe it does.

What should that tell us? That should tell us that if we continue to take strong steps, we can end this worldwide perception that our border is wide open, that anyone can come through our country legally or illegally and end that whole perception and shift toward that magic tipping point where people realize they are not going to be successful getting in our country illegally, and they are not going to be able to get a job once they get here. We can do both of those.

The American people need to know, our Members of Congress need to know, if we continue the course we are on and actually follow through on the things we have discussed, we can create a lawful border. It is not impossible. Don't have anyone say that is impossible. It is part of the steps. To say we should not do border fencing because that is just one step and that is not the whole thing is silly. If we have to take 20 steps to get to the goal, why say it is worthless to take 2 of those steps? Certainly we ought to take the steps we know we can do right now.

The American people are a bit cynical about what we are doing. The leader asks, Why do we want to bring it up now? We are about to finish the session, and we still haven't gotten it done. I don't want to go home without having done some things to improve the legal system of our border. I don't think most Members do. We have to get it done. We should have already had it done. I agree with that.

I was sharing some thoughts before the minority leader, the Democratic leader arrived, about what is in this bill, how it actually is effective and will actually work and will actually reduce the immigration in our country from illegal sources by a significant amount.

I was able to travel with Senator Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to South America recently. We were in a number of countries. We saw a report on polling data in Nicaragua that said 60 percent of the people of Nicaragua would come to the United States if they could. I mentioned that to the State Department personnel in Peru. They told me that 70 percent of the people in Peru would come to the United States if they could, according to a recently published poll. This is a wonderful place. America is a great country. All over the world, millions and millions and millions would like to come here. We cannot accept everyone that would like to come. I wish we could, but it is just not possible.

We need to set standards and appropriate behaviors to create a system that is lawful, No. 1; also, a system that lets people come in on the basis of merit and what is in the best interests of our country.

The House bill we are now considering has some important and valuable things in it. It calls for interlocking surveillance camera systems that must be installed by May of next year. They are going to keep waiting. How much longer can this go on? We need Homeland Security to get moving. It says all of the fencing must be installed by May of 2008. That is a good step. That says we are going to get serious and we are going to do something.

Laredo-Brownsville would be given until December of 2008. The bill provides the Secretary of Homeland Security the flexibility to substitute fencing with other surveillance and barrier tools if the topography of a specific area has an elevation or hillside of greater than 10 percent.

I ask what the balance is on both sides.

Mr. President, the bill that is before us today requires the Secretary, not later than 30 days after passage, to evaluate the authority of our Customs and Border Protection agents to stop vehicles that enter the United States illegally and that refuse to stop when ordered to stop. Compare that authority with the authority given to the Coast Guard to stop vessels on the high seas that don't stop

when they are ordered to stop, and to make an assessment about whether the Border Patrol authority needs to be expanded. We have a real problem with people just riding by and placing people at risk by not stopping. That situation needs to end.

We need to give our agents authority sufficient for their own personal safety and the protection of the laws of this country.

The Secretary would be required to report his decision within 60 days.

The bill further calls for a northern border study to assess the feasibility of a state-of-the-art infrastructure security system. The report will assess the necessity for such a system, the feasibility of implementing a system, and the economic impact of the system.

We need to look at the northern border. We are not arresting 1 million people-plus a year on the northern border. It does not have anything like the impact of the movement of people illegally such as we have on the southern border, but we need to watch that, too.

Fencing is proven. In San Diego, where they built a fence a number of years ago, crime has fallen dramatically. According to the FBI Crime Index, crime in San Diego County--the whole county--dropped 56 percent between 1989 and 2000. Can you imagine that? Just by ending the open border that existed, vehicle drive-throughs where they do not stop--and the reason they have fallen from between 6 and 10 a day before the construction of the fence, to only 4 drive-throughs in 2004, the whole year.

This is a mockery of law when 6 to 10 people are just driving through the border ignoring the Border Patrol officers who are there. What kind of mockery of law is that?

Fencing has reduced illegal entries in San Diego.

According to the numbers we have, apprehensions decreased from 531,000 in 1993 to 111,000 in 2003. That is by four-fifths. That is only one-fifth the number being arrested today as there were 10 years ago as a direct result of serious enforcement bolstered by physical barriers.

Fencing has also reduced drug traffic in San Diego. In 1993, authorities apprehended over 58,000 pounds of marijuana coming across the border. In 2003, only 36,000 pounds were apprehended. In addition, cocaine smuggling decreased from 1,200 pounds to 150 pounds.

I am glad to hear that the majority leader--and the Democratic leader--indicated he would move to have this bill come forward on the Senate floor. If there is some tweaking which needs to be done, that will give us an opportunity to do that.

I think the bill is fundamentally sound in all respects. I urge my colleagues to look at it. I think they will feel comfortable that it is consistent with their previous votes in this body for a fencing measure.

But the Members of our body need to understand that our first vote on fencing, which we authorized on the immigration bill, is not going to be effective because that bill is not going to pass. It was an amendment to that bill. If we are going to do anything before we leave this year--and the American people should be watching us carefully-- this is what we need to do. We have an opportunity now to stand up and make real what we have talked about and what we voted for. If we don't do it, we will not make that reality come into effect, and we will not be faithful to the promises we made to our constituents. And, once again, we will see this kind of cynicism and disrespect for Congress because of our inconsistency in what we say and what we do.

Too often I have observed in this body when we come up with an idea about immigration that does not work, it will pass. If you come up with something that actually does work, for some reason or another, even if it is voted and passed in one body or other, it never seems to really become law. This time we need to make our legal system work.

I thank the Chair.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I am convinced that physical barriers at our borders--fencing in particular--are an important and central cost- effective solution to border security.

My colleague, the Democratic leader, has used a figure of $7 billion. We think that is greatly exaggerated. We believe it can be done for much less than that, although that money has been floated. A private contractor has indicated he could do it for about $1.8 billion, and that is the money we put into the bill. And with the help of the National Guard, I think we ought to be able to build fencing at a rate far less than that.

I note that this is a one-time expenditure. This expenditure is going to reduce the 1 million apprehensions a year dramatically. A barrier like this will enhance the ability of each and every single Border Patrol officer to do his or her job. It will enable them to be far more effective. It is going to enable us to not have to hire nearly as many people. It will send a signal to the world that our border is not open. That means we will need fewer bed spaces.

We are going to be moving toward reaching that tipping point where the border is perceived as being closed, where the legal system is being honored in America again, and where we can make a difference in this whole system. Manpower alone cannot work.

Are they going to have to stand every 500 yards on the border and try to catch people? When you apprehend somebody, you have to pay to take them to a facility and then take them back across the border; or if there is some distant country, pay for a plane ticket and send them back home and put them in a detention place until that occurs. We think we need a catch-and-release program. But even if we do this, it is still very costly.

A fence is going to save us billions of dollars over the years. It is going to allow us to be effective, with fewer Border Patrol agents. It is going to help us reach that tipping point where we will need far fewer bed spaces and far fewer planes to charter to take people back home. We will have far fewer efforts to move people back across the border, at a great savings to this country. This is a cost-savings bill. It is a statement bill, I submit. When you count the costs of salaries and the time and insurance for our Border Patrol, the risk at which they are placed, a fence is going to be a tremendous asset to them. We will have a roadway so they can move down in their vehicles along the border to pick up people who have entered. The word is going to get out that it is not easy to do that anymore.

There are a lot of other things we need to do. We need to clarify the current law as it exists.

Along with my staff person, Cindy Hayden, a lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, my chief counsel, we wrote a Law Review article for the Stanford Law Review. We talked about the authority of the local law enforcement officers. They have authority in most instances, but it is blurred and confused, and as a result most State and local law enforcement officers are afraid to do anything. We need legislation that will fix that. We need the workplace enforcement.

All of these are steps that need to be taken so that people can't come into the workplace fraudulently and get a job as they are today. Those things can be done, but a critical part of this entire process is securing the border first. The American people expect us to do that.

This legislation gives us that capacity. We can make that difference, and the result will be that we are going to see further improvements in the number of apprehensions.

Then, next year we need a good dialog. As Senator Harry Reid said, we need to take Professor Borjas's book, ``Heaven's Door,'' and take other testimony that we have seen and reviewed and build on that and develop a comprehensive program that we can be proud of, that will allow talented immigrants to come here, people whom we know scientifically from studies and analyses will be successful in America, who will pay more in taxes than they take out. And the numbers are really scary.

Large numbers of people coming in today are high school dropouts, do not have a high school diploma. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a person coming into our country without a high school diploma, over a lifetime, will cost the U.S. Treasury almost $90,000. Think about that. They

will have a low-wage job. They will not be paying income tax. They will be receiving other benefits. That does not include extra schools and highways that will have to be built. It only includes what they will be getting in terms of earned-income tax credit or Food Stamps and other benefits such as medical and the like.

We are moving now. The American people's voices are beginning to be heard. But I think we are going to have to study this issue. If the American people will stay in tune, if they will insist on the highest and best values, including law and decency and generosity and a positive view of immigration, we will have all those values at play in our decisionmaking process. We can come up with legislation next year that actually could do more good than most people realize.

I can't tell you how exited I am about it. But it is absolutely essential that we take steps today to gain credit with the American people; to have them understand that we are listening, that we are going to make the legal system work. And then we can enter into a dialog with them next year to develop, as Professor Borjas's book says, policies that serve the legitimate interests of our Nation.

Why shouldn't we do that? Other countries are doing that. Are we saying that Canada is not an advanced and humane nation? Are we saying that the policies that New Zealand adopted are not humane and decent and effective? Look at it. We will find that they are. In fact, they allow quite a number of people to come into their country every year, but they try to allow those to come who have the best chance of being the most successful.

It has exciting possibilities for us. It is important that the misguided legislation that has come through this Senate has now ground to a halt, that the House has flatly rejected it, and that we in our own body are reevaluating it--I think rightly--and we will be at a point where we can start over, start afresh and develop a comprehensive plan.

Let's get credibility with the American people.

Let's make this border a lawful border again, and we will see a reduction in crime. We will see increasing economic and commercial development in the areas where enforcement becomes a reality. We can tell the world that you have an opportunity to come to our country, but you are going to have to meet standards. You will have to apply, and you will be objectively and fairly evaluated. And if you meet those criteria, you will rise up in the list. If you do not, you may not be able to get in. We are sorry, because everybody cannot come in here. We wish it were different, but it is just so. We cannot accept more and more and more. We have to decide what the right number is, what skills and assets they bring that we want for our country, and make a selection process on that basis. It is really exciting, that possibility.

In our situation today--I say to my colleagues, I would like to share this one thought with you--and I am sure the report that Senator Reid mentioned probably has some discussion of it because it is a defining event--only 20 percent of the green cards--that is the card that gives one permanent residence in the United States--only 20 percent of those are given out based on the skills of the applicant. Think about that. How can that be in our national interest? The experts we have heard say it is not in our national interest. Canada and other nations have analyzed this. They have decided that is not where they want to go. So they are trying to get to 60, to 70 percent based on skills.

Yes, we will always have those subject to persecution around the world, humanitarian cases, who we will allow in our country. But the number and the way we are doing it now is not a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I notice that none of my colleagues are here. Senator Reid, I am pleased to say, indicates he will be supporting moving forward to the bill and cloture. I will take time, as we are heading up to the hour to vote, to share a few additional thoughts.

The only way we are going to get an authorization of the fencing is to pass this amendment. The authorization for border barriers I offered as an amendment, which was adopted as part of the comprehensive so- called immigration bill, will not become law because that bill will not become law. This is the way we have now to do it.

The House has passed a bill that is thoughtful, that makes sure we are not playing a shell game with the American voters but that we actually create a mechanism to ensure that the fencing gets built on a timetable. It includes a number of other things, such as technology and sensors and the like.

The second aspect of the legislation is very, very important. We voted in this body 93 to 3--and the majority leader and the Democratic leader both made reference to it--to fund it at $1.8 billion. That was a commitment we made. We said we were for that. This budget that we passed has $20 billion set aside for emergency funding as part of our budgetary expectations for this year. How much of that will go to homeland security? We have to be careful to watch. And even though we authorized these barriers at the border, which are going to make a huge, huge difference in reducing illegal entry into America--it is going to be so positive--but if we do not fund it so we can actually build it, it cannot be built. That requires an appropriations.

So I am getting worried about that. I am hearing some things--that the $1.8 billion we passed with such an overwhelming vote may not be funded. So isn't that the shell game we are talking about now? Isn't that the deal? We thought we had done it on the Defense bill. It would be built through the National Guard who is already on the border. And the money would go to them to supervise, to contract out, or utilize their own personnel to construct this fencing.

That is what we thought we had done. But as often happens around here, subtle things happen. You think you have something in your hand and like a will-o'-the-wisp it just disappears. I hate to use the words ``shell game'' because it is not always planned out that way, but the effect can be the same. First you think you have it, and then it disappears. You think it is under that shell, you think you have it, and it is not there.

So I am going to have to tell our leadership on both sides of the aisle I am pleased to see we have a commitment to building the fences. We voted twice now, and the House has overwhelmingly voted for this. But we need to make sure we don't play a shell game where we don't have the money at the end to build it because somebody wants to spend it on a pet project they have.

This is a matter of national interest. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter we cannot fumble the ball on. It is a matter we are committed to by our previous votes. So let's make sure we do it. And setting priorities is what we do. That is what we are paid to do. We cannot do everything. So we will have a bit of a test as the session winds down to see if the appropriations process--the actual appropriating of the money to do the things that are needed to be done--is carried out and the funding is there and the barriers are built.

Again, I repeat, this would be a one-time expenditure. I believe the numbers we are hearing are too high. We felt like $1.7 billion, $1.8 billion would do the 370 miles of fencing, including 500 miles of vehicle barriers. There is enough money to fund that. But if we are going to have to have that, we can't have no funding, a third of the funding, or a half of the funding or we are not going to be able to do this job. And if it turns out we are wrong and the cost is higher than we expected, we are not going to come close to doing what we are telling the American people we intend to do. So we will have to watch that.

I will just share, in conclusion, my thoughts about the nature of the American Republic of which we are a part. It is a good and decent nation. We have a positive view of immigration. We have been a nation of immigrants from our founding. We believe in immigration. But we are also a nation of laws.

I was a Federal prosecutor for 15 years, and it breaks my heart to see the Federal United States law be made a mockery along the border of our country, that without fencing people are driving by, and not even stopping when the Border Patrol attempts to detain them.

We had a hearing yesterday on crime in America. We had the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. He told us that in the Federal prison penitentiaries 27 percent of the people detained are not American citizens. Can you imagine that--27 percent?

Now, I am absolutely convinced that overwhelmingly the people who come to our country are law-abiding; even if they come to our country illegally, they are law-abiding, other than their entry. But I have to tell you, if I were in big trouble somewhere in some foreign country, and they were trying to arrest me in my hometown, and the chief of police knows my name, and I am facing a big, serious crime, why would I not want to scoot across the border and go to the United States where nobody would know me?

I think we are picking up an excessive number of people who may even be fleeing prosecution in their towns or people who have come here to set up drug distribution networks and things of that nature. So somehow we are picking up a larger number of the criminal element than we ever have. When I asked Mr. Lappin about the prison system and the fact that he said 27 percent of the people in the Federal penitentiaries are noncitizens, I asked him: Does that include those we detain at the border who are being held waiting to be deported? He said, No, it does not even include those.

So this Nation, in our own interest, has every right--indeed, we have a duty to our people--to make sure our borders are not wide open, terrorists do not come here, drug dealers do not come here, people in trouble for sexual offenses and child pornography and those kinds of things, and child abuse, who flee their own countries, do not run across the border to safety in the United States, where they are never apprehended and live here.

So this is all part of it. If we are coming through with the right funding, we will be successful in taking the historic step to creating a lawfulness in this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am very pleased to join my colleague, Senator Stabenow, and my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, to talk about the reality that is confronting the American family across the country. That reality is, they are being squeezed, and they are feeling every day increased pressure from an economy that is not resulting in higher wages and income but is demonstrating increased costs to every family in the country. Between flat, stagnant incomes and increasing costs, they are seeing their dreams shredded.

It is our obligation, our duty to respond. This administration has not responded. The President tries to paint a rosy picture of the economy, but the American people know better because every day they see the high gasoline prices, and increased costs of education. They look at their paychecks and see no significant increases. And they wonder, really, for the first time in my lifetime, whether their children will have a better life than they enjoyed.

It was taken as an article of faith in America when I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s that your children would do better than you did. They are probably going to college, if you hadn't gone to college. If you were fortunate to be a college-educated person, they certainly would go to college and maybe on to professional school beyond. They would be able to enjoy a home in a good community. They would be able to use their talents and their energies to provide for their families and to build a strong America. But, again, for the first time in generations, many, many people are wondering whether their children will be able to afford what they did, and be able to accomplish what they have done. Can they afford a home in the same community they grew up in? In many cases, that is not true in America today. Will they have a pension that they can depend on when they get older 40 or 50 years from now? Will they have the ability to send themselves to school, to educate themselves, not just through college but throughout their lifetime?

This is not something that is just the impersonal effect of the world economy and globalization. This is something that Government has a duty to respond to, and this administration has not responded to it.

The facts are very clear. After adjusting for inflation, the income of the typical family is lower than it was when President Bush took office. The typical family has fallen behind in the last 6 years. The economy has gone through the most protracted job slump since the Great Depression. Even though job creation has turned positive, the pace of job creation has been modest and real wages are not growing.

The administration likes to point to statistics that show an increase in average income or compensation. But it seems pretty clear that these averages reflect gains by highly compensated individuals who receive bonuses, who exercise stock options, while ordinary workers see their wages falling behind with rising living costs.

When you talk about an average, if you have a lot of poor people and you have several highly compensated individuals, that average moves up. That is what the President is talking about.

What we should be looking at is, how do we help those low-income Americans see more in their paychecks? How do we help them protect against rising prices in so many critical areas?

This first chart demonstrates what has happened between 2000 and 2004. This is the median inflation-adjusted household income. This is the centerpoint of households in the U.S., 50 percent below, 50 percent above. So

it takes away the distorting effect of a few, a handful of terribly wealthy households in the country. This is the most accurate view of what has been happening. You can see in 2004, the median income was $47,399; in 2005, in inflation-adjusted terms, $46,326, a fall of $1,273. Median household incomes fell. That is not the sign of a good economy. In fact, that is the sign of a failing economy.

This is accompanied by another phenomenon. The second phenomenon is that prices are increasing. In fact, they are rising dramatically in critical areas.

This is a chart that shows the middle-class squeeze under the Bush administration. College tuition, room and board, up 44 percent; households have $1,300 less at the median; their expenses for college are going up 44 percent. Health insurance premiums, if you can afford them or you have access to health insurance at all, because there is a growing number of Americans who can't buy health insurance; those premiums are going up 71 percent.

Gasoline prices, up by 104 percent. Even in the last few weeks of lower prices, they are still extraordinarily high given the prices in 2000.

What you have seen is a situation--this is just arithmetic--income goes down, costs go up, families are squeezed. They have to put on hold a lot of their dreams and hopes for the future--for college, in some cases. They have to worry about whether they will be destroyed financially by a health care crisis at home because they cannot afford health care coverage.

Certainly we are all seeing throughout the economy how expensive it is just to get around because of the price of gasoline. For upper income Americans, the people who are certainly above the median income, this is a problem. For the vast majority of Americans, low-income Americans, the extra $10 or $15 per fillup means they cannot take the kids out for even a modest meal. They can't do things that they took for granted. They certainly cannot save.

One of the other phenomenons we have seen is virtually a zero savings rate for households in the country. They are not getting ahead.

I can recall--I think we all can recall as children--when parents talked about trying to get ahead, trying to get a little bit ahead, something that will give them not only some financial security but peace of mind. For some families in the last 6 years they are not only not getting ahead but they are falling behind. It is not predestined; it is not inevitable. It is because of the policies of this administration.

One of other startling aspects of the Bush administration is that employment has not grown. This is a chart showing the growth of nonfarm employment throughout administrations in the country going back to Herbert Hoover. The Bush administration has the worst nonfarm employment growth of any administration since Herbert Hoover. That is not a comparison anyone would like to entertain.

We have seen it go up and down through administrations, but this is the worst. Under the Clinton administration, there was a 2.4 percent per year growth in nonfarm employment. That has been reversing.

This is a situation where people are looking around, again despite all the happy talk of the administration, people just have to look around. The jobs are going away and they are not coming back. Pick up the paper. About every day you see a big American company announcing 20,000 jobs being let go, changes, restructuring, et cetera. That causes people great concern.

Again, we have to do something, and nothing of consequence is being done by this administration. It is the worst job record since Herbert Hoover.

That is a damning epitaph for the economic policies of this administration.

Coupled with the anemic job growth has been a similar anemic growth in earnings. Here again is a comparison. Between 1995 and 2000, under the Clinton administration, and between 2000 and 2005 under the Bush administration. What you see in the Clinton administration is a strong growth in earnings, weekly earnings, for every category of worker, from the lowest to the highest.

In fact, I should point out that the highest-income Americans did much better under the Clinton administration than they are doing under this administration. But what is startling is that this picket fence of the Clinton administration of growth in every income level, strong positive growth, is not the case in the Bush administration. In fact, in the lowest 10 percent you are seeing negative growth, a loss in terms of weekly earnings. The poorest Americans are not only not keeping up, they are falling behind. It is not just at the bottom, it is all the way up to the 50th percentile. Half of American full-time workers have seen a loss in the last 5 years in their usual weekly earnings. They are losing ground, and they know it. They are not getting ahead. They are falling behind.

You see at the upper income levels a slight increase. It was much, much better under the Clinton administration.

One of the ironies here is that the economic policy, relatively speaking, is benefiting the wealthiest Americans, but it is not benefiting them as much as under the Clinton administration.

Again, these are weekly earnings. This figure would be much, much different if we put in all forms of compensation. There you are seeing even a more pronounced view of the upper income Americans because of stock bonuses, because of all sorts of compensation that is not in the form of weekly earnings.

I would be happy to yield to the Senator.

That is absolutely correct.

That is right.

The Senator is right. It is absolutely a phenomenon between being crushed by falling real income and rising costs. It is not a situation where incomes are falling and being compensated by falling prices. It is a situation where they are being caught in this vice. The pain is palpable to working families throughout this country. These are all of our citizens. These are the people we all say we are here to help. And we are not helping them--not this Congress, not this administration. Not only are we not helping these individuals but it turns out the very policies of this administration and this Congress are rewarding those people who are doing the best, not those who need the assistance. That is evident in the tax policy being pursued by this administration and supported by this Republican Congress.

This is the average amount of capital gains and dividend tax cuts by household incomes in 2005. This is one of the centerpieces of the administration's proposal. They have to cut capital gains taxes. They have to cut dividend taxes. Here is where the benefits go. If you make under $50,000--that is an awful lot of Americans--you get $6 in benefits If a person is making between $50,000 and $100,000--most Americans within that range are considered to be pretty prosperous folks--they get $55 in benefits. If a person makes over $1 million, they get $37,000 in benefits. One of the reasons for this is the fact that most working Americans, if they hold stock, they hold it in their retirement accounts. These retirement accounts do not benefit directly from these capital gains and dividends tax cuts. So

for the vast majority of Americans, we are seeing virtually no direct benefit from these capital gains and dividends tax cuts. Of course, for the wealthiest, it is a bonanza.

Now, if this somehow stimulated a huge spurt in economic activity, growth, job performance, and increased employment, that might be a justification--not the most compelling, but a justification. We are not even seeing that.

What we are seeing--because, again, ultimately this is about arithmetic as much as anything--we are seeing a decrease in the resources and revenues of the Federal Government. So we can't compensate for increased cost of tuition. In fact, this administration, as the Senator from Michigan suggested, is sending up a budget that has record cuts in Pell grants and Stafford loans and those supports for education that are so critical at a time when everyone reflexively says we have to be the best educated country in the world because we must compete today with an emerging India and an emerging China.

We can no longer sit back on our laurels saying we have the best educated people. We have to keep investing in education. We have dissipated those resources in a way that does not benefit the vast majority of Americans but benefits very few. As a result, not only are the costs of education going up, but our Federal support for education is going down.

I should say something else, too. The last several weeks the, President hasn't missed an opportunity to remind the American people that we are at war. We are. And we have to support our forces in the field. I saw a figure today that to keep an Army division in operation in Iraq for 1 month costs $1.5 billion. Those costs have to be met.

With the tax policy rewarding the wealthiest Americans without benefiting the rest of America, without contributing in a demonstrable way to significantly increase employment, without contributing to supports and programs so essential to investments for the future of this country, we are not only dissipating our resources, we have also engaged in an international policy that requires spending that is very difficult to avoid, nigh impossible. Who is bearing the burden? It is all being rolled into the next generation of Americans as we accumulate a huge amount of debt going forward.

This is the most reckless economic policy I have ever seen. It is ``credit card economics,'' borrow as much as you can to fund military operations abroad, but we cannot afford domestic programs. What resources we have we give away in the form of tax cuts that are not strengthening the economy.

It is a massive shift of resources from the vast majority of Americans to the wealthiest Americans; from a generation in the future that will pay for it, to a generation today that seems to be consuming it.

Ultimately, these policies will catch up with us. They have already caught up with the families of America. As we debate these issues today, they are looking at sticker shock in health care, education, at the gas pumps, and housing. And they are looking at their stagnant paychecks.

Not only can we do better, we must do better. This Government has in the past been able to sort these problems out. We have a record over the last 5 years of the preceding decade of growth across the board in terms of income at robust levels, of significant employment gains, of fiscal responsibility. All of that today is history.

I yield.

That is absolutely right. The Senator is right.

We have extraordinary debt being held by countries such as China. Even Mexico is a creditor of the United States today. That debt has to be serviced. That money goes overseas. It is not kept within the United States for investment here.

It also not only economically weakens us, it puts us into a position internationally where we do not have the kind of leverage we used to have when we were an economic power that did not have these huge debt burdens, and we did not rely upon the kindness of strangers. We are relying on the kindness of lots of countries who, sometimes, are not our friends.

We can see that manifested in situations such as our relations with North Korea, China and our relationship with Iran. The Senator is a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee. We are struggling now to control the Iranians' race for nuclear technology. A key player is the Chinese. We cannot push them hard to take a tough line, in some cases because they hold a lot of our debt. That is a reality not only economically but also in terms of international affairs.

The Senator is absolutely right. He realizes, as I do, when the Bush administration came into power, we were running a surplus. We had a projected surplus over several years in the trillions of dollars, an opportunity to do lots of critical and important tasks for America: to try to reform our health care system which will require not only changes in rules, regulations, and procedures, but probably additional resources; to try to reinvigorate public education at the elementary and secondary level and try to make college more affordable. These were investment goals. At that juncture we had the resources to do it.

The Senator listened, as I did, to proposals which we thought were fanciful: the suggestion that if we did not cut taxes, our surplus would grow so great it would be unmanageable. What has grown so great and what is unmanageable now is not a surplus but a deficit.

The Senator also recognizes, as we look ahead and as we see this continued deficit finance and growing debt, there are structural issues which will drive the deficit further. For example, we have to somehow come to grips with a longer term solution to the alternative minimum tax which will take additional revenues and resources away from the Federal Government.

There are proposals, and we have heard them, of a full-scale repeal of the

estate tax. Again, that would be an additional denial of revenues and resources to the Government at a time when we are running a huge deficit and we are fighting a war.

All this adds up to what the Senator pointed out: not only annual deficits but a hugely increasing debt funded by foreigners, leaving us vulnerable not only to economic shocks but also to the fact, as the Senator suggested, that we are dependent. Dependency, in many respects, is the opposite of strength. We have surrendered a great deal of economic strength through these policies.

The bottom line of this discussion is that this is not some theoretical macroeconomic research topic. This is reflected in the daily lives of Americans who are struggling, and in the future they are seeing every day a decreasing sense of confidence that they can provide their sons and daughters at least as good a quality of economic life, family life, and support as they have enjoyed. That is distressing the American public.

Well, I think the Senator has a very valid point about Social Security, that, yes, you are right, from what I read into those comments, the President and the Republicans in the House of Representatives are committed to, once again, going after Social Security. It seems to me to be contradictory to everything that Americans are experiencing today.

The one phenomenon that is frightening everyone is the loss of defined benefit pensions, left and right. Thinking back to when I was beginning to enter the workforce, in the 1960s and 1970s, if one of my colleagues had said: I have just taken a job as a machinist at United Airlines--you would say, you are set for life, just like your father was. You are going to work for 30 years, and you are going to retire with a nice pension and have benefits like health care. You, financially, are in a good position.

Now we are hearing stories about machinists' pensions being abrogated because of bankruptcy proceedings, companies that we took for granted as being solid trying to get rid of their pension liabilities. The only thing left for most Americans is Social Security.

Now, we hope they all have 401(k)s and private investments. But there is that credit card commercial about how something costs $50 and something costs $80, but at the end there is that priceless element. The priceless element, when it comes to pensions, is Social Security because at least you know every month you will get a certain amount of money, you will have something, you will know what it is. And that is worth a great deal because it gives a certain peace of mind. For most Americans, it is very modest, but at least it is something they can say they will have as long as they live.

This administration wants to eliminate that. They want to put every American into a market which has great ups, but also great downs. It has cycles where everyone is doing well and cycles where people are not doing very well at all.

That cannot be the bedrock of retirement. We have to maintain Social Security. So it is shocking to me that despite what America said over the last several months--essentially, take your hands off my Social Security--this administration is going to try again.

And, of course, there are ways we can fund Social Security. I think we did that under the leadership of you and your colleagues in the 1980s, where changes were made to the formulas, changes were made to the rates of taxation, changes were made to strengthen Social Security.

They are not interested, I think, in strengthening it because their objective is not making sure that American families have something to rest their dreams on in retirement. This is, in some respects, simply another example of catering to the market, of letting these investments be turned over to private markets. And there is some advantage to that, but not fundamentally with respect to Social Security.

I am afraid we are going to have to fight this fight again.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to claim my 1 hour at this point and ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the most pressing issue that I believe families feel across this country and certainly in my home State of Michigan, and that relates to the squeeze that families are feeling on all sides today. It starts with the issue of jobs. We see that almost 3 million jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector in the last 6 years--almost 3 million jobs. When we look at this chart, under this administration we see that we have the slowest job growth of any administration in over 70 years. We have to go back to Herbert Hoover to see the kind of job loss that we are now seeing--the slowest job growth in over 70 years.

In my home State of Michigan it is even worse than that, because what we are seeing is the impact of a lack of a 21st century manufacturing strategy on those in my State who have been the global leaders--who are the global leaders--in manufacturing. Almost 3 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing alone, and 260,000 of those jobs have been in manufacturing in Michigan.

Now, to add insult to injury, we see expenses going up on all sides for families. They are losing good-paying jobs.

Absolutely. I yield to my dear friend who is the ranking member on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

That is correct.

Absolutely. Prior to the Great Depression.

Absolutely. In my home State of Michigan, because we are the global leaders in manufacturing, and I know in my good friend's home State of Maryland it is the same way, in terms of manufacturing, that number is even worse because of the lack of effectiveness in enforcing trade-offs, because of our inability to address health care and being able to change the way we fund health care, because of the lack of investment in education and innovation. That number does not reflect the fact of the impact of the loss of good-paying jobs, the kind of jobs that have built the middle class of this country.

Frankly, I am very proud to represent a State that has been at the forefront in the auto industry, with an industry that has created the middle class in this country--middle class jobs, not only in autos, in furniture production, in other manufacturing.

The reality is that we have lost almost 3 million jobs that created the middle class of this country. Even though there has been just a tiny little bit of an increase here over all, we see it is the lowest, slowest job growth of any administration. We have to go way back to Herbert Hoover to find an administration that has a worse jobs record than this particular President.

I have to say it is particularly insulting to those of us in Michigan who, given this record and the fact that we have almost 3 million jobs that have been lost, and 260,000 manufacturing jobs in Michigan alone, that when the President of the United States came to Michigan a couple of weeks ago to do political fundraising, he didn't have 30 minutes to meet with the auto industry. He didn't have 15 minutes to meet with the executives of the largest employers in the country. In fact, he has postponed or canceled I believe three different meetings with them and now says he is prepared to meet with them after the election.

This isn't about elections. This isn't about politics. This is about a fight for a way of life. This is a fight for a way of life in this country. While he is waiting until after the elections to meet with the auto industry and to begin to engage to do something about these numbers, we have folks who are facing layoffs today. We have headlines. We have Ford Motor Company and their latest headlines. We have struggles going on throughout the industry. Every day, somebody in Michigan gets up in the morning and worries about whether or not they are going to have a job, worries about whether or not they are going to be able to afford to send their kids to college, whether or not their health care is going to still be there, and whether or not they are going to be able to pay for it.

To add insult to injury, too many people who have worked all their lives and who have paid into a pension are now finding themselves in a situation where that pension won't be there. I think that is the ultimate outrage. In the United States of America, I never thought I would have to stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and say somebody may be in a situation to lose a pension they have paid for their whole lives. We addressed this issue on a bipartisan basis, and I am very proud we put in place efforts that are going to save many of those pensions because of the work that we did a few weeks ago. But too many people still find themselves on the line as a result of that, and that should not be an issue. Bankruptcy or no bankruptcy, in this country you ought to get your pension, period.

So we have a situation where more and more families are on the edge, more and more families who believe in America, who believe in playing by the rules, who get up every day and work hard at one job, two jobs, three jobs, and still find themselves falling more and more behind.

On top of the job situation that they are concerned about, they are being squeezed on all sides by all of the other costs that relate to their families. We see, for instance, a 44 percent increase in the cost of college tuition, room, and board--a 44 percent increase. So here we are, we are in a transition. We hear that the economy is changing. We need to be investing in education. We need to be investing in opportunity for the future, and in innovation and, at the same time, we see the costs going up, and the exact opposite policies are being put in place in terms of cutting opportunity for people.

We all want our children to have a better opportunity than we have had. I am very fortunate to have two children who have worked their way through school and a wonderful stepdaughter who just graduated. I understand about

student loans and what that means. I know the costs have gone up, because we have watched them go up over the last several years. There is no question that families are feeling more and more squeezed as it relates to creating opportunity for their children to be successful, and that makes no sense in this country. That makes no sense at this time when we could be doing something about it.

Health insurance premiums have gone up 71 percent. Seventy-one percent under the Bush policies and this administration--71 percent. Now, this is an issue for us in Michigan with not only families and individuals who are struggling to be able to pay for what I believe should be a right in this country, not a privilege, which is health care, but we know what it is doing to our businesses as well. We know that in a global economy, we are the only industrialized country that pays for health care the way we pay for it. So we add to the burdens on our manufacturers, our small businesses, and others by having health care predominantly on the backs of business

To make it even worse, we end up, because of our system, because of the craziness of our health care system, paying twice as much of our GDP for health care as any other country, but we have 46 million people with no health insurance. What is wrong with this picture? The United States of America has the highest infant mortality rate. Shame on us. We can do better than that. All this takes is a matter of political will, to make the changes that are necessary so no family has to go to bed at night praying that the kids are not going to get sick; no small business has to worry about whether they are going to be able to find health care for themselves and their employees; and no manufacturer should have to worry about whether they are going to be able to compete internationally and still provide health care for their workers.

Health care costs have gone up 71 percent. To add insult to injury, gasoline prices experienced a 104-percent increase. They are coming down now. They are coming down a little bit before the election. We know what will happen after the election. And we also know what has happened to people trying to go to work, trying to take the kids to school.

In my home State, in Michigan, where we have a very robust tourism season, we want everybody to be able to go to the cottage up north, take the boat out, and enjoy the wonderful Great Lakes or go fishing on the inland lakes and rivers. This is a major economic factor for us, gas prices. What happens to individuals who have to take more money out of their pockets just to be able to get to work? Maybe this summer they didn't take that trip they normally take, which means our small businesses up north were hurt. It means economically we are not seeing the robust investment in tourism that normally we have seen in Michigan.

Families are being squeezed on all sides. This is just a fraction of the cost we have seen going up. What has been the response of this administration? What has been the response of the Republicans in Congress? Unfortunately, the response has been, first of all, to block our efforts to ban price gouging. As part of the Energy bill that passed a year ago, an amendment of mine was agreed to that required the Federal Trade Commission to do a complete investigation of price gouging. It took them way too long, but they finally came back and indicated that on the surface of it, they didn't think it was happening and they really didn't have the tools. We had not defined price gouging so that they could really be serious about that. The administration basically took a pass on whether there is price gouging. So we introduced legislation to define it. That has not been able to move because there has been no support to do that.

Health care costs? We could go on and on in all of the areas in which, instead of coming together and doing what we can do, efforts have been blocked. Here are some of the basics, starting with the Medicare prescription drug program. Instead of having a plan that works for seniors and the disabled, a plan was written that was great for the drug industry. Included in that was the outrageous provision that we are not allowed--Medicare is not allowed to negotiate group discounts. Can you imagine that anywhere else? Anybody knows bulk purchasing is cheaper, negotiating group prices is cheaper. Yet, in the area of Medicare, in behalf of the industry, that is prohibited.

What is the result of that? First of all, we have a Medicare plan, essentially, that is privatizing Part D, requiring those to go through private insurance rather than directly through Medicare. There is just a great big hole. Some folks have called it a doughnut hole, this gap in coverage, because there is not enough money to pay for complete coverage because they can't negotiate group prices. All the money is going to the industry rather than going to make sure there is comprehensive coverage.

There is a better way to do that. I am introducing legislation that would allow us to go directly to Part D. Any senior, any person with disabilities, could go directly to Medicare, sign up under Part D under the normal copays and premiums, go to their local pharmacy, they negotiate prices, we eliminate the gap in coverage, and folks would get what they need without all of the confusion and complexity. But that has stalled. We have not been able to move that forward because of the administration and those in control.

The Senator is absolutely correct. We have the model. It is the VA. They have done it very well. They have been able to get a better deal, anywhere from a 35-percent to a 40-percent lower price because they negotiate prices. I don't know anywhere else in the Federal Government where we are not trying to get the best price, where we are not trying to negotiate, except in the area of prescription drugs, except in the area of lifesaving medicine where somebody may need it or they may not be able to live or may not be able to treat their symptoms for high blood pressure or diabetes or get their heart medicine or get their cancer medicine--except in the area that is lifesaving.

Even with the VA, which does a marvelous job in negotiating prices, we are able to do that in every area except Medicare--Medicare, the health care system for older Americans and the disabled. It is the only place where the decision was made to go with the drug companies rather than to go with the people who are on Medicare.

There are so many areas in health care costs we should be addressing--health IT, bringing down the cost of prescription drugs with the use of generic drugs, addressing the issue of health care costs. Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln have a very important proposal that would allow small businesses to pool together nationally and to be able to have a pool--whether it is Blue Cross, whether it is other private insurance, whether it is HMOs--be able to pool together to get the best price. That came to the floor and was voted down.

I have legislation that would provide a catastrophic tax credit for our manufacturers. We know about 1 percent of employees in a business will be seriously ill during the year, but it is 20 to 25 percent of the cost of the health care paid during that year. We could take a major step forward if we provided a tax credit for catastrophic costs to help our manufacturers and our businesses.

This is not rocket science. It is about having the political will and the right values and the right priorities. This has not happened here, and every day people continue to struggle with their health care. Too many people end up in emergency rooms where we pay twice as much because they are sicker than they should be and they are not getting the care at the time they should be getting it. They get treated. The hospital, of course, does the treatment, as it should. Then the costs roll over onto everybody with insurance. That is why

we pay so much for health care, and we in the Senate should be focusing on this as a No. 1 priority.

I mentioned college tuition before. Right when we need to be focusing on more opportunity for people in a changing economy--we all talk about education all the time--what happens here? Right before Christmas, we had the largest cut in student loans in the history of the country, $12 billion. For everybody who had to refinance their loan by July 1 and saw their interest rate go up, it was as a result of that.

Then, on top of that, we see the President proposed the largest cut in education for next year, the largest ever proposed since the Department of Education was established. Who would believe that at this time, in a global economy, that we ought to be proposing and passing the largest cuts ever suggested for education? These are the wrong priorities and the wrong direction.

And then, certainly, time and time again, we have tried to pass a minimum wage bill that truly raises the minimum wage for everyone. It is something that makes sense. It is something where workers in every State will find that their minimum wage will be raised.

Let me just say that I see our distinguished colleague here, Senator Reed, who has played such a distinguished role on economic issues, and I will yield to him to speak in just a moment, but when you look at the numbers and you look at what is happening to families across this country, we need a new direction. We need a new direction. We need to create a new set of priorities based on a different set of values that put Americans first--American businesses and American workers.

What I see happening in this country is a willingness by the President and those in charge of Congress to accept a race to the bottom in a global economy. Too many workers in my State have been told: If you only work for less, pay more in health care, and lose your pension, we can be successful. That is a lose-lose strategy. First of all, there is always going to be somebody in another country who can work for less.

I don't want to win that race. Nobody in Michigan is interested in winning a race to the bottom. What we understand is that we need to do what America does best, which is make this a race to the top. In order to make it a race to the top, we have to have a level playing field on trade. We can compete with anybody if the rules are fair, if it is a level playing field. We have to change the way we fund health care and address health care costs for businesses and families. We have to change. We have to start passing legislation that addresses health care in a positive way, to truly bring down costs, not just shift them around but bring down costs in a real way and make health care available and affordable and support businesses and families.

We have to continue to say we are going to protect pensions. We did make a step forward in that area, and I am proud that we did that together.

Then we have to race like crazy on education and innovation. That is what we do in America. Let's race up. Let's make every other country race to keep up with us. Let's be the ones who are continuing to invest in education, in opportunity for every child, in opportunities for everybody to be able to go to college and focus on areas of math and science and technology and engineering and all of those things we need to do to make it a race up, areas of health research, creating new opportunities and new discoveries. That is what we do in America. That is what we have always done in America. But we have seen in the last 6 years a willingness to put that all aside for other priorities, put that all aside and make this a race to the bottom. That is not good enough.

We believe in a race to the top, and we know that is going to take a new direction. It is going to take a different set of priorities. It is going to take a different set of values to do that. But in a global economy, if we are going to keep our middle class, we have to do that.

We are in a fight for our way of life in this country. It is not going to do any good if a few people have a lot of money if the average person has no money in their pocket to be able to buy that house, that car, send the kids to college, get the boat, and be able to enjoy the beautiful lakes in Michigan, be able to buy their medication. It is not going to matter if everybody is being asked to race to the bottom.

So I am hopeful--in fact, insistent--that we turn things around. America can do better. We need a new direction. We need a race to the top. We can do this. It just takes people who get it, people who get it to be in charge with the right values and the right priorities, and Americans are expecting that to happen. In fact, they are tired of waiting for it to happen. And so am I.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1002 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend, from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only.

This rule provides for 1 hour debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This legislation, much of which has already been passed by the House as part of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Control Act of 2005, is a positive step in regaining operational control of our borders and achieving broad reform of the immigration process.

This legislation is the product of five formal hearings in standing committees during this Congress alone. It also draws on a number of hearings in past Congresses and a wealth of information learned through field hearings conducted over the August recess by Members of this Republican majority.

Last month, many Members of this body, who were greatly concerned with addressing the problem of our porous borders, traveled across the country to determine what steps could be taken to harden our borders and ensure that those who would wish to harm us cannot exploit this well-documented weakness.

Like many other Members, over August I traveled to our border. I traveled with Congressmen Charlie Dent, Henry Cuellar, John Doolittle, and Jo Bonner to meet with Border Patrol agents from Laredo, Texas, and to see firsthand the needs of our country as it relates to border protection.

We discussed with these dedicated men and women on the front line of our border how best to address the rampant drug and human smuggling that occurs in an area along our southern border. We learned firsthand of the challenges faced by our brave Border Patrol agents in combating the flood of criminal activity that occurs along our southern border on a daily basis. The information we learned on this trip, and the information learned from dozens of other field hearings just like this from this past August, all have been incorporated in the legislation that we will hope to take up today.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 advances the rule of law and protects our Nation by providing our Border Patrol with the tools they need to achieve operational control of the border. The language closely mirrors sections 101, 1002, and 1003 of the border bill already passed by the House, and authorizes more than 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along the southwest border with prioritized placement at critical, highly populated areas. It also requires an evaluation of infrastructure needs along the northern border of America.

The Secure Fence Act also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security achieve and maintain operational control over the entire border through a ``virtual fence'' utilizing leading edge technology and through established best practices to create optimum results at the most efficient cost. This includes the deployment of cameras, ground sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, and integrated surveillance technology.

This legislation further requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide all necessary authority to border personnel to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the authority already held by United States Coast Guard for maritime vessels.

Finally, this legislation requires DHS to assess our Nation's vulnerability on our northern border and to address how they can be effectively and efficiently resolved.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a commonsense step that this Congress can take to deal with problems of alien smuggling, illicit drug running, and illegal immigration. The House has already passed a more comprehensive bill that enjoyed the support of 239 bipartisan Members. But because a broader package of reforms may not be enacted into law this year, our Republican leadership has decided to take the least controversial portions of this broader reform effort and to pass them in pieces that the other body can then take up and pass.

I would like to commend Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner for their vision and leadership in bringing this commonsense bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank my dear friend, Mr. Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Chairman Pete King, who is chairman of Homeland Security, and all the members of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees for their hard work in doing the research and hearings that were necessary to bring this bill to the floor.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation to provide operational control of our borders.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Fullerton, California, chairman of the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee, Chairman Royce.

Mr. Reyes, by the way, this entire body not only recognizes but appreciates your service to this Nation, not only for the professionalism that you continue to exhibit but that which you did for your 26 years.

I would say to the gentleman two things, if I could politely suggest to him that he knows it is not truthful to say that we are going to have a 2,000-mile fence along the border. That has not been suggested. We have never talked about that, and to insinuate that would simply be untruthful.

We have not suggested that, and this bill very specifically, and I would like to have the gentleman, if he would like to get a copy, relates to adding 10 miles of fencing that extends 10 miles west of the Tecate, California port entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; 10 miles west of Calexico, California to 5 miles east of Douglas, Arizona; 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso; extending 5 miles northwest of Del Rio to 5 miles southeast of Eagle Pass, Texas; extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry. This will be literally 100 miles worth of fencing. It will be 700 miles worth of fencing when you add up the total. What we are trying to do is to take the things that we heard firsthand that the men and women who work on the border said. This is the priority, not 2,000 miles.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I would like to reclaim my time. We have talked about this since 2001. The fact of the matter is that this bill is very specific. It aims directly at where the problem is. I would like to also note that not one mile of fencing is in the Democrat plan, not even 15 feet worth of fencing. I don't know how you can have a comprehensive plan when you talk directly to Border Patrol agents who are in Laredo, Texas and other points along the border, and they say their number one concern, they are asked is the fencing, first of all, to allow them for their own safety, their own safety. The men and women of law enforcement who are down there have asked for, and, in the Republican bill, will get the fencing that they have asked for.

I will not at this time, but I know that the gentleman has lots of time left to continue the debate.

We need to make sure that we are doing what the men and women of law enforcement are asking for. What else are they asking for? They are also asking for, and I have seen firsthand, the need to better protect those people, the unassuming people, who illegally are entering our country, who do so at great risk and peril. These fences, which are in our bill, not their bill, not 10 feet of fencing that is in their bill, will allow our Border Patrol agents to effectively deal with this huge number of people who are coming here to wall off areas that are dangerous for our men and women, as well as people who are just dumped off on the border late at night and told, go that way.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken time, Republicans and Democrats have taken time to come to our border and see what we need. It is the Republicans that heard from the Border Patrol agents and others. We need to help protect this country, yes, but we need to do it to protect people who many times get in trouble, many times who need desperate help, and it is to help save our agents as well as those people.

I am proud of my bill. For the characterization that this is a do- nothing bill, I would say, I am sorry that you didn't hear what was said at these important hearings and did something about it. That is all this bill is. It is to take what we heard of the most immediate concerns. We know we have a debate with the Senate. We know we have got some problems trying to negotiate that through, but this should not be held hostage.

I would like to go directly, Mr. Speaker, to H.R. 6061, which is what we are discussing here, but bringing in to incorporate the things that we know we have already done under our FY07 Department of Homeland Security appropriations. We are going to provide for $19.6 billion for border protection.

What we are going to do, as I recall it is darn near September, and as soon as this month is over with we want to have new money. We are going to pay for this fencing. To assume or to say that it is not going to happen would really be, I think, less than honest. The administration is working with this body. We are opening up this information to the other party that had been a part of the hearings, and they know that we are going to have money that is available directly for the needs of what this bill is about.

But what this bill specifically does is it says this is the priority at this time. We believe the fencing is there for good and intended purposes.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the vice chairman of the Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Subcommittee.

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

My colleagues and good friends not only from Texas, Mr. Reyes, but also the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Texas have spoken very eloquently about the needs of this great Nation. I have every reason to believe all three of those individuals joined many other Members of this body in hearing from people about the needs of the Border Patrol, the communities along the borders and the things which they would want and need.

This bill is very specific. It talks about the types of things that would be necessary and needed on an interim basis.

Both you and I, Mr. Speaker, understand that we have passed bills many times before this that are more comprehensive, that are larger, that contain money, that do a lot of things that will enable us to get closer. The bottom line is, we need this interim step to get done now. It comes as a result of the hearings, it comes as a result of feedback from the Border Patrol, it comes as a result of communities who have asked us to please help them. So we are going to do that.

I am going to ask Members to vote ``aye.'' I am going to ask them to support this bill. And it is my prediction, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a bipartisan-passed bill today on the floor of the House of Representatives because it represents the balance and integrity of not only our Speaker, Dennis Hastert, but also John Boehner and our great chairman of Homeland Security, Pete King.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 1002, Rule for H.R. 6061 Secure Fence Act

of 2006

In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the

following:

``(2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed

in Section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative

Reyes of Texas or Representative Thompson of Mississippi or a

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any

point of order or demand for division of the question, shall

be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for

60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3)''

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

``Sec. 2. The amendment by Representatives Reyes (TX) and

Thompson (MS) referred to in Section 1 is as follows:

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 606

Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1002, I call up the bill (H.R. 6061) to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress return to their districts, as Members of Congress speak with the American people, it is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration.

This is an issue which is absolutely essential if we are to gain the confidence of the American people, if we are going to show to the American people that we can perform the most basic obligation of any government, and that is to secure the Nation's borders.

Now, we passed very comprehensive legislation in December of last year, H.R. 4437, and I was a strong advocate and cosponsor of that, along with Chairman Sensenbrenner, but the reality is that legislation is right now bogged down. What we have to do is we have to prove to the American people and also we have to make substantial progress in combating illegal immigration.

One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the United States Senate and the Congress is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait, and wait for God knows how long until comprehensive legislation is enacted, there is no reason whatsoever why we should not move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. We have to bridge this disconnect between the American people and its government, between the American people and the elite, and we have to show we are responsive.

Now, the legislation today incorporates very much what was already passed by the House with significant Democratic votes back in December. It provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing. It also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security achieve and maintain operational control over the entire border through a virtual fence, deploying cameras, ground sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, integrated surveillance technology, and it also requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide the necessary authority to border personnel to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the authority which is already held by the United States Coast Guard for maritime vessels.

We also realize there is concern at the northern border, and I want to especially thank my colleague from New York (Congressman Reynolds) for his efforts in homeland security, particularly on the northern border. With his help, we were able to enhance the Secure Fence Act to ensure that appropriate technology and infrastructure are being considered and that border security efforts are implemented in a manner that does not stop or deny commerce.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue where the American people are crying out for help. They are crying out for us to take meaningful action. There is, to me, no reason why, and I am trying to anticipate arguments coming against it, basically saying we need comprehensive legislation, and that is a debate we can have. We passed comprehensive legislation in December. But the fact is just because we cannot do everything today doesn't mean that we should do nothing.

So I am saying let us do something very, very positive. Let us pass this legislation, which will build a secure fence, which will build a virtual fence, and would also give the border personnel the assistance and the power that they need.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6061.

Mr. Speaker, I would just make several references, one to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, who is ranking member and does such an outstanding job on the Homeland Security Committee, that I don't think it is ever a waste of taxpayer dollars to go out and hold hearings and listen to what the American people have to say. Sometimes it is good to get away from just reading editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post and actually hear what real people have to say.

Secondly, if we are going to show that we are genuinely against doing nothing, then let's do something and pass legislation which we know the overwhelming majority of the American people want, and that is to build this fence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my good friend from Texas that just a 14-mile fence in San Diego has brought about a significant decrease in crime. And also one of the reasons why we believe this fence is essential is for the humanitarian reason of not allowing so many people to die in the desert the way they do today because there is no fence.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend from California, all of us agree no one provision is going to solve illegal immigration, but this is a significant provision going forward.

In addition, this year's appropriation bill provides for 1,200 new Border Patrol agents which will bring us up to 14,580, an increase of over 80 percent since September 11, 2001, and over 1,200 ICE officers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time both sides have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the real gentleman from Iowa and the real Mr. King.

Could I inquire of my friend from Mississippi if he intends to use all his time with more speakers?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Actually, we have a pinch hitter. I yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes

to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to listen as carefully as I can to the debate, and the only real argument that I hear that really make any sense is that building a fence is not the only answer. I think all of us on this side agree. But we also believe it is a very

essential part of the answer, a significant step; and the fact that, again I repeat, that we can't do everything, does not mean we should do nothing. That is why it is, I believe, essential to go forward with the legislation today, since there is broad support for it; both here in the House and in the Senate, as well, there is support for it, and also among the American people.

Also, as far as the references made to terrorists coming across the southern border, there is no doubt that there have been captured al Qaeda documents which indicate the desire of al Qaeda to bring people across the southern border.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the committee, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is the author of the original amendment on the wall.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

At the outset let me commend and thank my friend Mr. Thompson from Mississippi both for, I believe, the high quality of debate certainly on his side and hopefully on our side today and also for the cooperation that he has given throughout the time that I have been chairman over the last year as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that is more on the minds of the American people than illegal immigration, and there is one part of the bill that we passed last December which has overwhelming support, and that is the construction of a fence along significant parts of the southern border, operational control of the balance of the border, and also to give Border Patrol agents the authority to stop vehicles, to use force to stop vehicles. But, again, the key part of this is operational control and significant control, including the use of a fence along the southern border.

We can tell the American people we have heard the message. We can tell the American people that we are willing to put aside political correctness and do the right thing.

It is legislation that is humane because it will save lives. It is legislation that will work as it was done in San Diego. It is legislation which would tell the American people that we are serious about combating illegal immigration. And rather than wait for everything, we will do what we can and we will just step up to the plate and get it done.

With that, I urge passage of H.R. 6061.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let me just state at the outset, again, the great regard I have for Mr. Thompson and also for Mr. Reyes. But in that context, I must say that I strongly disagree with their motion to recommit, primarily because even though this is the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the motion to recommit nowhere even mentions the word ``fence.'' And it is significant that they seem unwilling to address this fundamental issue.

We believe on our side and a solid majority of the House of Representatives believed last December, and indeed a majority of the United States Senate believed, that a fence is essential, that a fence is important. And that is why it was passed last December, that is why the overwhelming majority of the American people support it today, and that is why we are bringing it forward now.

The reality is that comprehensive legislation is not going to be moving. But, again, the American people are crying out; they are demanding that we take action. This is an issue which goes right to the heart of America today, whether you live on the border or whether you live in the north, the Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, it is an issue. As Members went back to their districts this summer, last spring, the one issue that resonated completely was the issue of stopping illegal immigration. One proven way is to build a fence and to get operational control over the entire border.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

If I could reclaim my time, I do believe that it is significant that in a fence act, even though fencing was mentioned in December legislation passed in the House, even though fencing was mentioned in the Senate bill, there is no reference to it, which to me is bowing to political correctness. We are up front about what we are asking for.

Also, I don't believe we should abdicate responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security. We should make it clear what we want, tell them what we want. If they want some variations within there, fine. But we feel so strongly about this, the American people feel so strongly about it, I believe it is essential that we make it loud and clear what we do want.

Now, having said that, on the issue, for instance, of Border Patrol agents, the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 will include 1,200 new Border Patrol agents. That will get us up to 14,580, an increase of almost 50 percent over the last several years. There are 1,012 new ICE officers, which will get us up to 11,500. This appears to be about as many as the system can absorb as we train new officers, and we are going forward with that. If more are needed, I pledge to the ranking member we will work to bring that about as we go into the next session.

But it is essential that we do this today to tell the American people that we have gotten the message, that we are willing to take the action that is needed, we are willing to go on the line this is needed, this is essential; and we are calling for it, we are demanding it, we are voting for it. The easiest way to say that we are going to do the right thing on illegal immigration, to stop illegal immigration, and also to be humane and stop the deaths in the desert.

I was at the desert with Speaker Hastert and Congressman Rush and Congresswoman Miller this past July, went to Yuma and Nogales in Arizona, we helicoptered across the desert. To me, a fence is absolutely essential in certain parts of that border. That is what this is about. Let's put aside political correctness, let's have the guts to do the right thing.

I urge defeat of the Democratic motion to recommit and passage of the underlying bill, H.R. 6061.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.