Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for my colleagues who are here, I wish to explain the reason for an amendment which I have filed, No. 912, along with the cosponsors, my colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Cornyn from Texas, an amendment which seeks to add some money for the U.S. Marshals Service. I wish to explain why we think this is a good idea, but first to say that in speaking with Leader Reid, we are trying with our staff and the majority staff to see if we can work out the appropriate pay-fors for this in an appropriate amount of money that would assist the U.S. Marshals Service. Hopefully we can work something out. I am just trying to explain the basis for this at this time. As you know, we have done a lot of work on the borders to try to secure them, and that has required us to add money for the U.S. Border Patrol and several other accounts in the Department of Homeland Security. We have added money for the Department of Justice. We need new judges, courtrooms, prosecutors, defenders. It has taken a lot of money to secure the border with all of the different aspects that are involved. The one area we have not kept up with is the U.S. Marshals Service. All of us know the U.S. Marshals Service. It is a great organization. These people do tremendous work. But sometimes we forget them. And what we have learned here is that while we have an increased ability to apprehend illegal immigrants and to try them in court, and even jail space to hold them, the group that does the holding and the transporting and the keeping of the judges and the courtrooms safe during the process, the U.S. Marshals Service, has not had funding to keep up with this. As a result, they are way low in terms of both personnel and also some facilities that need to be upgraded to accept the much larger numbers of illegal immigrants and other prisoners who are in their custody. To give you one illustration, when prisoners are brought to a courthouse, obviously there are huge security measures that have to be followed to ensure that jurors, judges, the public at large, witnesses, and so on, are not in jeopardy because of the existence of the prisoners. So they are generally brought in vehicles, appropriately accompanied, to secure facilities in the court building and then at the appropriate time brought to the courtroom, and all in the custody of the marshals, and with appropriate security for all. However, because of these increased numbers, what we found is, by way of example, they bring the prisoners from the holding facility, the prison, the jail, wherever it might be. They literally have to disembark in a public parking lot where jurors are parking to come up to be involved in cases, where the public at large, where witnesses, where victims and families, judges and lawyers are coming to park to go to the courthouse, and go up the elevators and so on right with these same people. That is not a secure situation. In most situations the marshals have the ability to take their prisoners directly to a secure port, a place in the courthouse where they can immediately put them into custody in a secure locked-down facility. Construction of some court buildings need to keep up with this demand, and it requires some money, in this case, about $16 million. I know this is a small matter in the overall budget that we are talking about. But for the Marshals Service to do its job, this is important for them. They need additional personnel. The cost of that far exceeds $10 million. But that is what we thought we would try to ask for in this amendment to at least bring the Marshals Service up to a level where they can accommodate the new numbers of prisoners. In our amendment, $20 million is provided for additional deputy marshals and security-related support staff to assist in overall Southwest border enforcement. We have narrowed this down to the five judicial districts on the border that have--well, in fact, these districts have about half--49.7 percent, to be exact, of all the prisoners nationwide brought into the custody of the Marshals Service are brought in by way of those five Southwest border judicial districts. And about half of those in the Marshals' custody along the Southwest border are or were held for immigration-related offenses. So this is the need that we are trying to satisfy with this amendment. The Marshals Service employs only about 80 percent of what they need in terms of Marshals and support staff in these court facilities. A recent Department of Justice hiring freeze has prevented the Marshals Service from reaching even 90 percent of its personnel needs along the Southwest borders. To reach 100 percent of staffing would require $43 million, to hire an additional 162 deputy marshals and 71 support staff. We all know the constraints we are all operating under here, so we cut that back to simply try to reach 90 percent of their requirement for hiring needs. And that, as I said, would require just about $20 million for these hiring purposes. On the construction side of it, the amendment provides for $16.5 million for these detention upgrades at the Federal courthouses located in this border region. Of the $16.5 million, $1.5 million would specifically be allocated for courthouse security equipment. I have told you a little bit about the problem with the security at the courthouses. Some of this would obviously be used for construction of a port that would allow these vehicles to unload detainees and prisoners right next to cellblock doors and so on. I described that. But this is the least we can do, both to protect the public and to assist the Marshals Service. There has been some dichotomy of views, shall I say, expressed by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security about whether they have what they need to secure the border. We have heard the Secretary of Homeland Security say, we have all we need. But we also know that the Secretary has said, we have to prioritize our detention policy, for example, because we do not have the facilities and the money we need to detain and deport all of the people who are deportable, so we have to focus on the most serious crimes, the felons primarily, who are now the top target for deportation. Obviously if you have to prioritize, we would agree with that prioritization. But what that means is that they do not have enough money to do all that they are trying to do. So on the one hand, it is kind of distressing that the Department says we have all we need and, on the other hand, we do not have enough, so we have to prioritize what we do. What we are trying to do in this appropriations bill is to attack the one part of the problem that we can in this bill, and that is to help the U.S. Marshals. As I said, I do not think there is one of us here that would not be supportive of that. I want to avoid the situation where, God forbid, someone is at a courthouse or entering the courthouse or whatever and innocent people are harmed because we did not have the appropriate security. That is what we are trying to provide in this amendment. As I said, this is cosponsored by my colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Cornyn. Obviously the three of us are very aware of the problem that we have in our judicial districts on the border. So I reiterate, I appreciate the offer of the majority leader to make majority staff available to see if there is some way that with my staff we can work out some appropriate amount of money, with the appropriate pay-fors. I hope I will be able to announce that a little bit later on. I will not take any more of my colleagues' time right now. But if anyone has questions about this and wishes to talk to us about it, since I am hoping that we will have something to support a little bit later on this evening, I would appreciate them either contacting me or Senator Cornyn or Senator McCain.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, would it be in order for me to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes at this point?

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it has been said no one is indispensable and that may be true, but next week we will test that theory after the departure of my chief of staff, Lisa Wolski. Lisa has been on my whip staff since January of 2003. She started as tax counsel in my personal office, because I serve on the Finance Committee, and then moved to the whip office in late 2007. We refer to people around here as staffers. She is more than that. That name doesn't begin to encapsulate what we think of those people who work with us every day and provide us with all the things we need to try to be successful. That certainly is Lisa Wolski. She is and always has been one of my most trusted advisers. She is the gold standard of expertise and professionalism. Everything I have asked her to do she has done and done well. More important, she brings to me the things she thinks I should be thinking about, and more often than not that is exactly what I end up doing. She knows what she is talking about. She knows what I want and what I need. Those who work with her know she is smart, she is articulate, and through her mastery of complex policies and political savvy, she has accomplished great things in my whip office during the time I have been whip. I cannot tell you the number of people who have told me, over the last several weeks since they learned she is going to be departing, how much they will miss working with her. Other than her extraordinary competence and work ethic, one of the many reasons I will miss her is because, as I said, I think she and I think alike. That is not because she accommodated her views to mine but because she came to her views separately, from a basis of understanding and reason and experience and knowledge and it happens our views generally coincide. That is a happy coincidence for Member and staff, and in my case to have a chief of staff who shares those views with me has made my job much easier and it makes work much more comfortable, to be able to work in great harmony with someone on whom you rely. She instinctively knows what I will think about a particular issue and she has always been there with good counsel and advice. I wish to conclude by saying Lisa Wolski leaves behind a great example for all the other staff people who work here, as well as the legacy of achievement and professionalism. I know she will be a great success in her new job--she doesn't need good luck. Her new employer will be very fortunate to have her wise counsel--undoubtedly more than they even know at this point. But I do know in the Senate we are going to miss Lisa Wolski very much.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to briefly explain my position on the free trade agreements/trade adjustment assistance package. I support the free trade agreements, FTAs, with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea, and only wish these agreements had been taken up sooner. The FTAs represent true, bipartisan jobs legislation, and I am pleased they will soon become law. Free trade agreements have proven to be one of the best ways to open up foreign markets to American exporters. These agreements will create tens of thousands of new jobs by boosting American exports to three nations. The FTAs will also strengthen America's interests in two strategically important regions. I do not, however, support the trade adjustment assistance, TAA, deal that was negotiated as part of the compromise to pass the FTAs. Nor do I think it should have been included in the FTA negotiations. I have several key objections. First is the enormous costs. Over the next 3 years, the TAA deal adds over $1.15 billion in new costs to the baseline TAA costs. Together, baseline TAA and these provisions will cost almost $6 billion for the 2011-2013 fiscal years. Second, the TAA deal does not represent a true compromise. The proposal was made only by three of the strongest TAA supporters. No critic of TAA was included in the negotiations. Third, the umbrella of TAA programs deserved greater scrutiny than the process allowed. Instead of a moving a reauthorization with some rudimentary changes, fundamental reform should have been completed. There is little evidence that the TAA programs are actually effective, and, under this deal, we are going to spend billions of dollars on these programs without knowing whether they actually help Americans. Moreover, no work was done to reform the TAA training funding to reflect the fact that there are already over 40 programs dedicated to worker training. Fourth, the TAA deal represents false reform. Proponents try to take credit for eliminating two grant programs within TAA for communities-- programs which were already repealed. Proponents also cite the elimination of the mandatory nature of TAA for farmers/fisheries, which were already defunded for other purposes. Only in Washington would someone try to take credit for ``ending'' programs that no longer exist or that have no funding. Proponents also claim that the size of the TAA for firms program was reduced. But that program represents a status quo authorization and is one already targeted by President Obama for elimination. How does level funding and rejecting a repeal recommendation constitute reform? For these reasons, and others, I voted against the trade adjustment assistance legislation when it was considered a few weeks ago. The FTAs are sufficiently meritorious on their own accord without tying in a poorly designed and operated social welfare program such as TAA. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar).