Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL. Madam President, this amendment is fully offset. It is $200 million. It simply provides the funding for the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to extend a program that has worked very well in two sections of the border to a third section. It is called Operation Streamline. It permits the Department of Justice to try cases, put people in jail, rather than catch and release where they are simply put on a bus and returned to the border. Everybody wants to secure the border. This is a program that has had a 94-percent success rate, a 94-percent reduction in apprehensions in the Yuma border sector and almost that much in the Del Rio sector. So if we can extend that to the sector where half of the illegal immigration in the country comes across, I think we can substantially reduce illegal immigration. Then, for everyone who wants to pursue other legislation, I think there will be a better state of mind in which to do that. So I urge my colleagues to support this $200 million fully offset amendment.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I am going to take a couple minutes to describe the second-degree amendment I have. I appreciate the fact that there was an offer on the other side to simply accept my amendment. I appreciate that, but because it is attached to a first-degree amendment, I am not sure about the prospects for that. I thought it important that all of us have an opportunity to be recorded. This amendment is simple. It provides $200 million for extending the Operation Streamline Program to another border sector, in addition to the Yuma sector and the Del Rio, TX, sector, where it is already in operation--extend it to the Tucson sector. This could substantially reduce illegal immigration, because about half of all of illegal immigration goes through the Tucson sector. Operation Streamline is simple. It involves the Department of Justice accepting those who cross the border illegally into the court system and putting them in jail for about 2 weeks, and sometimes 30 days if there is an incident of repeated crossing or attempted crossing. What we have found is that there is a great deterrent effect. If people who are apprehended know they are going to jail for a couple weeks, they tend not to cross in that area anymore. In fact, in the Yuma sector where this has been in effect now for several years, illegal immigration has been cut by 94 percent, from 118,500 apprehensions 5 years ago to about 5,000 this year. It is simply a fact that when people know they are going to go to jail or the prospects are very high they are going to go to jail, whether they are criminals crossing the border--that is about 17 percent of the people-- or the remainder who simply want to come here to work, they realize going to jail is going to obstruct their plans. They cannot make money and send it back to Mexico, El Salvador, or wherever their family might be if they are trying to cross for work purposes. What we found in the Yuma sector is they simply do not cross it anymore. They have now moved farther to the east in the Tucson sector. This amendment of mine simply provides $200 million, fully offset, of emergency funding to implement Operation Streamline--a combination Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security program--to ensure this deterrent can be in place in the Tucson sector just as it is in Del Rio, TX, and Yuma, AZ. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. As I said, the money is offset. This is definitely an emergency. It will substantially help us to secure the border without the necessity of building permanent structures such as fencing or anything of that sort. It is a good amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, on May 25, Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote a column in the Washington Post explaining that Russia's recent agreement to tighten sanctions on Iran is not as significant as the Obama administration has claimed. Dr. Kagan wrote that the Obama administration paid a high price to get Russia to agree to ``another hollow U.N. Security Council resolution'' and that the Russians ``sometimes used to say and do more'' during the Bush administration. It is unclear to me what the administration can point to as the fruits of the Russia reset, at least as far as the United States is concerned. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Dr. Kagan's column printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to talk about both the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator McCain, to provide funding for members of the National Guard to be deployed to the border, our southern border with Mexico, for the purpose of better border security, as well as the amendment which I have offered as a second-degree amendment to the Cornyn amendment which provides funding for Operation Streamline, which is the process by which people who are apprehended crossing the border illegally are sent to jail for a couple of weeks as a deterrent so that they then don't want to cross in the future because they know they are going to be in jail rather than working someplace for the money they came to work for. Just to explain one thing: when there is a member of the majority on the Senate floor, I will ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment with a technical modification. But the amendment is the same. What it does is to provide the sum of $200 million for additional funding for multiagency law enforcement initiatives--that is the way they are described--for the Tucson sector of the border, and that is roughly the eastern half of the Arizona border with Mexico. Mr. President, $155 million of that would be available for the Department of Justice for the purpose of hiring additional deputy marshals, constructing permanent detention space, and other related needs of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, then $45 million available to the judiciary for courthouse renovation and administrative support, including judges and court clerks. This is offset, and the emergency designation would be appended to it as the modification I will submit. The purpose of this is to enable the Border Patrol and the Department of Justice, when illegal immigrants are apprehended crossing the border, to present them to court. They are represented, and they can enter a plea or they can waive further proceedings. For those who, in fact, are found to have crossed the border illegally, they can be sent to jail. Ordinarily, if it is the first time, it is a 2-week sentence. If they have done it repeated times, it can be 30 days or it may be that some will serve 60 days. I am not sure. The point is, where this has been done, for everybody who crosses the border--with some exceptions--for almost everybody who cross illegally, it has created a very effective deterrent to crossing. It becomes apparent to people who are trying to cross in that particular vicinity that if they do, and they are apprehended, they are going to jail. About 17 percent of the people who come across illegally are criminals, wanted for crimes in this country, and obviously they don't want to go to jail. For the other 83 percent, roughly, those are people coming here to work. They cannot work and make money if they are in jail. They cannot send money back to family in Mexico or El Salvador or wherever it might be, so they, too, want to avoid this result. The effect of this in the Yuma sector of the border--which is one of the two sectors, Del Rio, TX, being the other--where it is fully implemented, is that there is virtually no illegal immigration attempted in that sector of the border anymore. There are effective fences--about 11 miles of double fencing--and they have sufficient Border Patrol agents in the area. There are some other factors for the reduction of illegal immigration in that sector. In the last 5 years, the apprehension has declined from 18,500 down to about 5,000-some--a 94-percent decrease. The head of the Border Patrol and others tell me one of the primary reasons for that reduction is this operation streamlining--the sure knowledge if they cross into that sector, they are going to jail. If we can provide that same kind of deterrence in the Tucson sector, where about 50 percent of all illegal immigrants are crossing into the United States from Mexico, then we would have gone a long way toward securing the border. Certainly, in Arizona we would have substantially eliminated illegal immigration in the State. If we add to that the amendment of Senator McCain, which would provide the funding for deploying National Guard on the border, I think we can go a long way toward securing the border in a relatively short period of time. So when the President has said he agrees with us that we need to secure the border, and he even proposed some funding or some National Guard troops on the border, I think this is a recognition that it is the right way to go. I will make two quick points about Senator McCain's amendment. First, the President has proposed far fewer numbers than Senator McCain has proposed, which is a total of 6,000 National Guard, or 3,000 on the Arizona border. We believe it will take that many in order to accomplish the goal. The President's numbers are far fewer. It is unclear from the lack of detail in this proposal, but it appears those will not be literal boots on the ground but, rather, these National Guard troops will be there for the purpose of training and for administrative work, investigative work, and will, for the most part, be back from the border and not actually engaged in the work at the border itself. The importance of that is we are told--at least anecdotally--the one thing the people who are coming across the border illegally fear more than anything else is National Guard troops. Border Patrol, they don't like them. They don't like a county sheriff or anybody else, but when it comes to the National Guard, they want to avoid them. So this represents a real deterrent. The second thing I want to say is, there is a letter from the National Security Adviser and John Brennan, the President's intelligence adviser, contending that the McCain amendment is an interference in the Commander in Chief's responsibilities because it purports to order National Guard troops to the border. I want to make it clear that is not true. This appears to be another case of somebody in the administration spouting off about a law they have not read. In this case, it is the McCain amendment. It is all on one page. It is very easy. It says--by the way, remember, this is an appropriations bill we have, a supplemental appropriations bill. We are appropriating money. That is all the McCain-Kyl-Hutchison-Cornyn amendment does. It says: Additional Amount [that refers to money]--For an additional amount under this chapter for the deployment of not fewer than 6,000 National Guard personnel to perform operations and missions under section 502(f) of title 32 United States Code, in the States along the southern land border of the United States for the purposes of assisting U.S. Customs and Border Protection in securing such border, $250 million. Then there is the offsetting rescission. It doesn't order National Guard troops to the border at all. It simply provides $250 million of additional funding for the purpose of the Guard, to the extent, obviously, or up to or fewer than 6,000 troops on the border. So it doesn't order anybody, doesn't interfere with the Commander in Chief's responsibilities. For that reason, I hope when we have an opportunity to vote on this amendment--and I think one of the questions I want to ask my colleagues with regard to this vote is, when we vote and support the McCain amendment for funding for the National Guard, the Kyl amendment, which supports Operation Streamline, and the Cornyn amendment, which he will soon describe--the key is to get a vote. It is now 20 minutes until 4. Cloture has been filed on this bill. It will ripen tomorrow morning and, presumably, we will have a vote. The question is, Will we have a vote on these amendments? Are we being slow-rolled? I hope a member of the majority can come to the floor so we can ask, Are we going to get votes on our amendments? They are in order. They are not going to be out of order, from the Parliamentarian. They will provide funding for something all of us agree we need to do, and the President also agreed we need some funding, in any event. The bottom line is, if we don't vote today on these and cloture ripens, this body will never have had an opportunity to express itself on this issue. What I want to do is, when the majority arrives, ask unanimous consent that we set these amendments for a vote so we can vote. I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, yes, I do think it has broad acceptance. I wasn't aware of this particular poll. I will ask my colleague from Arizona about this because he is very much aware of the public sentiment on this issue.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I might respond by noting that my colleague from Arizona likes to talk about exactly what would happen. When President Reagan did exactly that, and the promise was to secure the border with amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, the amnesty was granted, but the border was not secure. I know there is an argument on the other side that, well, if we secure the border, then some people will not want to do comprehensive reform because they would not have any incentive to do so anymore. I don't think that is right. I think there would be more of an incentive once we do secure the border. In any event, we certainly should not hold securing the border hostage to passing some law in the future. That is our obligation and the President's obligation irrespective of what other laws we pass.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I recall--and I could be wrong on this-- the number that had been deployed to Arizona roughly in 2005 or 2006--I do not recall the exact year--was about 2,600. It was not quite 3,000. Obviously, we needed everyone we could get. Eventually, a lot of those troops were then deployed to Iraq, I believe. In any event, we all--the Governor and the rest of us--were distressed when they were finally pulled out. I think 2,600 or something pretty close to that was the number and that Senator McCain believes 3,000 would be the appropriate number under the circumstances that exist today.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will respond to my colleague by noting, these are the crime statistics that are never reported. Let's face it, the people who are accused of these crimes cannot go to the police and report what has happened. Again, there is an argument made that crime statistics have actually gone down in the last 2 or 3 years. In the cities--the cities of Tucson and Phoenix, for example--that may well be true. I don't know. What I do know is this: In the rural ranch areas that my colleague, Senator McCain, speaks of, families who used to have no worries at all, left homes unlocked at night, windows open, and if an occasional illegal immigrant or two came by and needed a sandwich or water, frankly, they got it, now fear for their lives. One of our constituents was killed a couple months ago, a rancher who was beloved in the area. Others have been robbed. There have been physical assaults. They are no longer safe in their homes and in those more rural areas. In the urban areas, I, too, will not describe on the Senate floor what goes on. If you can imagine large numbers of women and children who are brought across the border by people who have absolutely no scruples about committing any crimes whatsoever. They commit rapes and leave articles of clothing hanging from trees as a warning to anyone who dares to report it or as a way of bragging about what they have done. The things they do to these people cooped up in the safe houses for weeks on end, as my colleague said, are unspeakable. There are so many reasons to secure the border. But this is one that is never spoken of. It bothers me as much as it does my colleague because we have people who speak of the human rights issues that might relate to an Arizona law enforced by sworn police officers in the city of Phoenix and the city of Tucson who, I am quite sure, will do their job as professional police officers, and not a word is spoken about the kind of situation my colleague and I have described. That bothers us significantly. It is just one more reason we do need to secure the border, as my colleague said. Amendment No. 4228, as Modified Mr. President, I wanted to wait until a member of the majority was here. I ask unanimous consent to modify the second-degree amendment that was offered yesterday, No. 4228.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me ask my colleague a question. The number of National Guard troops that would be funded under his amendment is 6,000 total. The idea would be that it would fund 3,000 on the Arizona portion of the border and 3,000 wherever they would be deployed in other places on the border. Senator McCain has argued that is a number closer to what is needed to do the job the National Guard can do than a number that would be less than one-fourth that much. Would the Senator describe a little bit more the historic levels that existed, for example, during the time our now national Homeland Security Secretary was the Governor of Arizona, when she was very supportive of the Guard as well, compared to what Senator McCain has asked to be funded in his amendment?

Mr. KYL

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

Mr. KYL. Madam President, in a moment, I am going to ask for the regular order with respect to the Cornyn amendment for the purpose of offering a second-degree amendment to the Cornyn amendment with one additional request for appropriations--namely, about $200 million for some court personnel and related facilities to accommodate taking illegal immigrants who have violated the law by coming into the country illegally and, after processing through the court system with lawyers available, incarcerating those people for 2 weeks or, if it is multiple offenses coming into the country illegally, for 30 days in most cases. Where this has been done on the border, illegal immigration has already come to a stop because going to jail represents a real deterrent. To illustrate the difference between two sectors of the border in Arizona, we can see how we could really make a difference for a relatively small amount of money in controlling the border. It can be done. Arizona is divided into two halves. The eastern half is the Tucson sector; the western half, going into California for about 30 or 40 miles, is the Yuma sector. Both have had huge problems with illegal immigration. In the last 5 years, illegal immigration in the Yuma sector has been cut by 94 percent. That is huge. There is one other sector on the border somewhat similar, the Del Rio, TX, sector, where this Operation Streamline is also in effect. It has been cut dramatically there as well. In the other Arizona sector, Tucson, where Operation Streamline has not been fully implemented, there are still about a quarter of a million people per year crossing the border who are apprehended. Nobody knows how many get across and are not apprehended. Estimates range from three to four to five times as many. So in all likelihood, there are about 1 million people crossing the border every year in the Tucson sector, about a quarter of whom are apprehended. We need to provide a deterrent for those people so they realize they should not cross. About 17 percent of the people who are apprehended when they try to cross illegally we find are criminals in the United States. They have criminal records in the United States or are wanted for crimes here. Obviously, those people do not want to be incarcerated when they are caught. The remainder, the 83 percent, want to come here to work. They just want jobs. But they cannot be providing for their families back in Mexico, El Salvador, or wherever they might be from if they are in jail. The Yuma sector experience has found that as a result, if they know for a certainty that they are going to go to jail if they are caught, they stop trying because it is simply not worth it to them, and they go someplace else on the border to try to come across. The number in Yuma is staggering. Five years ago, we were apprehending 118,500 immigrants. So far this year, it is about 5,000. I was there about 6 weeks ago. I talked with the head of the Border Patrol. I said: What is it like just today? He said: There is no activity. I said: There has to be some. He said: No. Most days, nobody tries to cross. I said: That is pretty remarkable. Why? He said: Three factors. We have 11 miles of double fencing in the Yuma urban area, we have enough Border Patrol, and we have Operation Streamline. There are some other assets. They have cameras. There are lights. The Marine Corps, which helps in the far eastern part of this sector near the Barry Goldwater gunnery range, a place where jet airplanes fly and drop bombs for practice, takes care of that. They have had pretty good luck there. But there are no pedestrian fences. It is all vehicle barriers in that area. And there is some radar out there. The bottom line is, with a combination of these things, what they have found is they can secure the border. It is relatively inexpensive--I say ``relatively.'' You do have to have a defense lawyer, a prosecuting lawyer, a court clerk, a judge, a courtroom, and then you have to lease the jail space. Those things can be done. What we are hoping is that we can begin to apply this same concept to other sectors of the border and that in a relatively short period of time, we can demonstrate that we can secure the border. When we do that, not only will we have done what we are supposed to do as the people who are in charge of enforcing the law, but then I think people will have a much more open mind to consider other issues, such as elements of comprehensive immigration reform. As I have said, we do not need comprehensive reform to secure the border, but we do need to secure the border to get comprehensive immigration reform. And this is a good-faith effort to do it. We have provided the funding. I will read it. It is very brief. This is an additional amount to fully fund--it is called multiagency law enforcement initiatives; ``multi'' because it is both the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice. These are already authorized under title II of the public law, but this would be $200 million, $155 million available for the Department of Justice and the remainder, $45 million, available for the judiciary. That is for courthouse renovation, administrative support, including hiring additional judges. The first part is hiring additional deputy U.S. marshals, constructing or leasing temporary detention space, and related needs of the Department of Homeland Security or Attorney General. At this time let me ask unanimous consent to return to regular order for the Cornyn amendment, if that is the appropriate procedure for offering my amendment as a second-degree thereto. Amendment No. 4202