John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask when that was?

Mr. McCAIN. In the early 2000s. I would say to the Senator from Nebraska, she is so ill-informed from the statement I just heard. I don't know where to begin, except to say that if she doesn't think this legislation secures the border, she hasn't spent any time on the border--certainly not meaningful time. And I can't express my disappointment in the series of false statements the Senator just made.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would welcome the Senator from Nebraska to come to the border and see what has been done and what can be done with the use of technology. And to somehow believe our border cannot be secured by this legislation argues strenuously for a visit, and I invite the Senator. I would be glad to join her at any time.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Again, I can't speak for Senator Grassley, who is managing the bill in an outstanding fashion, but I would like to point out, in conversations I have had with Senator Grassley, these amendments are in process, and as the Senator mentioned, there are a number of them being cleared. In other words, rather than just being judged noncontroversial, which I certainly accept the word of the Senator from Louisiana, we need to clear them with everybody. I hope she understands, and I hope we can move forward rather rapidly with that process. I don't dispute they are ``noncontroversial,'' but every Senator obviously wants to have these amendments cleared with them, and they have already started that process. I appreciate the advocacy and the involvement of the Senator from Louisiana. She has been extraordinarily involved in this issue by helping us make the package much better, and I hope she will show some more--I emphasize more--patience as we try to get this package agreed to by both sides.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. First of all, could I say that all of us who have had the honor of working with the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from North Dakota are greatly appreciative of the work they have done. If there is going to be broad bipartisan support for the final product, it will be because of what the Senators from Tennessee and North Dakota have done, and I am very grateful for that. I think it is important--wouldn't the Senator from Tennessee agree-- that people understand that this is a very tough bill, and it required a lot of cooperation from our friends on the other side of the aisle to go along and agree with this. I think they have shown a great deal of compromise in order to reach this point and agree with us on this legislation, for which clearly we need bipartisan support. But I would like to ask the Senator for a couple of specifics because, again, I think it is important that we understand how tough this legislation is. Is it not true that we know already that E-Verify must be used by every employer in the country before anyone under this plan could be eligible for a green card? Isn't that true? It is already there?

Mr. McCAIN. And the electronic entry-exit system at all international airports and seaports has to be up and operational before anyone is eligible for a green card; is that true?

Mr. McCAIN. Now, thanks to the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from North Dakota, is it true that additional technology must be deployed and operational in the field-- and that includes new VADER radar systems, integrated fixed towers, unmanned aerial systems, fixed cameras, mobile surveillance systems, ground sensors--to the point where the head of the Border Patrol has assured us that if these technologies are in place and operational, we can have 100 percent situational awareness and 90 percent effective control of the border?

Mr. McCAIN. So to put the final piece of this puzzle together, is it not true that the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from North Dakota have called for 350 miles of additional border fencing in addition to the 350 miles already there and that 20,000 new, full-time Border Patrol agents be hired and deployed before someone is eligible for a green card? Is that a fact?

Mr. McCAIN. I wonder if the Senator from North Dakota would like to respond to that.

Mr. McCAIN. And is it not true, I say to my two colleagues--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with both the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. McCAIN. Is it not true, I say to my friends, that on our side of the aisle there is understandable skepticism--and well-founded skepticism on the part of my friend from Texas--because we have seen this movie before. In 1986 we gave amnesty to 3 million people and we said we would secure the border. Then in 2006 we passed a border security appropriations, and there was going to be plenty of money. Yet it was never funded. So for those of us from the Southwest particularly but people all over America, is it not true that there is understandable skepticism that we would not pass legislation that is binding? And is it not true that we can't make this, as far as border patrol and as far as miles of fencing, any more binding than it is in my colleagues' amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my colleagues one more question. With all due respect to every Member of this body, when we look at this legislation and we look at these triggers and the technology that is going to be required, which, if operational, the head of the Border Patrol has said will give 100 percent awareness and 90 percent effective control, plus this increase in fencing, plus Border Patrol agents and the already existing in legislation E-Verify--and I think the Senator from North Dakota is very correct. If we remove the incentive, if people know they can't get a job in this country unless they have the proper documents, then people will stop coming illegally. It also addresses the issue of the 40 percent who are here who never crossed our border illegally but came on a visa and overstayed it. So I would just ask for maybe a subjective opinion. Is it possible that one could ever argue against this legislation now by saying that it does not give us a secure border?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I have the Senator from North Dakota finish answering this question?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Texas for his engagement. As usual, the Senator from South Carolina has a very busy schedule. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 10 minutes and then I regain the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from South Carolina for his usual eloquent exposition of what this situation is all about. I have other colleagues who are waiting to speak, but I want to say again, the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Tennessee have shown the best of what this institution can be all about. Not only did they reach agreement between the two of them, not only did they reach agreement with I believe a significant number of our colleagues but they also reached agreement with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In this day and age, that is a signal success. I thank them for not only what they produced but the many compromises they had to make along the way. I won't try to embellish what the Senator from South Carolina said, except to say I come from a State that has probably been torn apart more than any other by this issue. We passed legislation in reaction to our broken borders, where ranchers in the southern part of my State were actually murdered; where our wildlife refuges were destroyed; where people died in the desert by the hundreds, their bodies were found months later; where coyotes bring people across the border and then hold them in drop houses in Phoenix for ransom under the most unspeakable conditions; where drugs are brought freely across the border and guided by guides on mountaintops, guiding these drug cartels as they bring the drugs to Phoenix. The drug people will tell you that Phoenix, AZ, is still the major drug distribution center in the United States of America. So I take a backseat to no one, even from the great State of Texas, of the enormous challenges and controversies associated with illegal immigration. We tried before and we failed. I won't go into why we failed and all the people who were responsible. I will take responsibility. I didn't do a good enough job in selling my colleagues on the absolute need for immigration reform. The fact is 11 million people live in the shadows, they live here in de facto amnesty, and they are being exploited every single day. Should not it be for a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles to bring these people out of the shadows? Yes, punish them because they committed crimes by crossing our border illegally. But isn't it in our Nation to come together and pass this legislation and not manufacture reasons for not doing that? Isn't there enough of a penalty? Isn't there enough border security now, thanks to my colleagues from North Dakota and from Tennessee--isn't there enough now? All I can say is I urge my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly in favor of this hard-fought, well-crafted amendment and let's move on to other issues that face this Nation. Then I believe we can look back years from now and say to our children and our grandchildren that we did the right thing. I yield floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer for these few extra minutes. I intend to speak until 12:45. There is a lot to say about the immigration bill, and obviously there are amendments that are pending. One, the Thune amendment would delay the process of bringing people out of the shadows until 350 miles of double-layer fencing is complete. This could have the impact of delaying the process for years. I note with some interest that the Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, believes there is no more fencing required in the State of Texas. Fencing is important. Surveillance is more important. This bill alone as presently written includes $1.5 billion of fencing for the southern border as a trigger to begin adjustment of status for those in RPI status, but it doesn't arbitrarily dictate the number of miles of double-layer fencing that should be built. I think we should leave that to the best judgment of the Border Patrol. I would point out that back in 2007, the Senators from Texas added an amendment to an appropriations bill that said: If the Secretary determines the use or placement of resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border. We currently have 352 miles of pedestrian fencing, 298 miles of vehicle fencing along the southern border, which is where the Border Patrol said it is most effective. The Vitter amendment has the same limitations. We agree, and in the bill an exit-entry system is created. The bill mandates that before anyone receives a green card, an entry-exit system must be in place in all air and sea capabilities. I want to remind my colleagues who keep referring back to 1986--and I was around at that time--there was no real provision for border security there. There are provisions here. And I want to emphasize that we know exactly from the Border Patrol the technology that is needed in each sector in order to get 90-percent effective control of the border and 100-percent situational awareness, and these are detailed in important technology--which is the real answer to border security. I am absolutely confident that with the implementation of this technology-based border security system, we can absolutely guarantee the American people--but, more importantly, the head of the Border Patrol--I will have a statement from him early this afternoon, and he will say that if we implement the technology--which they gave us the detailed list of--he is confident we can have 90- percent effective control of our border and 100-percent situational awareness. I hope my colleagues who are concerned about border security--and legitimately they are--will pay attention to the statement of the head of the Border Patrol who says unequivocally that if we adapt these specific enforcement capabilities and technology, we will be able to have control of our border. That is an important item in this debate and it is incredible detail. Also in this legislation we need to give them the flexibility where there is the improved technology, et cetera. We do need more people to facilitate movement across our ports of entry, but we have 21,000 Border Patrol. Today, on the Arizona-Mexico border there are people sitting in vehicles in 120-degree heat. In 1986, we had 4,000 Border Patrol. We now have 21,000. What we need is the technology that has been developed in the intervening years. I would be more than happy to say to my colleagues that if we have a provision that this strategy must be implemented and is providing 90- percent effective border control, that would serve as a trigger. I hope my colleagues will reject the pending Vitter and Thune amendments and we will move on with the legislative process. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, who is not only an outstanding Member of the Senate, but he is the chairman of the homeland security committee. He has gone out of his way to understand the issues we face when we are addressing border security. The chairman was kind enough to visit the border between Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, and spent a lot of time with us and with the people who are entrusted to secure the border. He made some remarks I think were entirely accurate about the challenges we face in enforcing our border. So I wish to again thank the distinguished chairman of the homeland security committee. I wish to address a few aspects of comprehensive immigration reform that need to be discussed. First of all, everybody says--and I say it too--we don't want to return to 1986 because in 1986 we guaranteed the American people we would secure the border, and it would never happen again. Well, the fact is, when we look at what we did in 1986--and I will, first of all, plead guilty for having voted for it--the only mandate in the entire legislation which gave ``amnesty'' to 3 million people was: Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under paragraph one, sufficient funds shall be available to provide for an increase in the Border Patrol personnel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service so that the average level of such personnel in each of the fiscal years 1987 and 1988 is at least 50 percent higher than such level for fiscal year 1986. Let me translate that. It meant we would increase the Border Patrol. That was the only mention of how we were going to secure the border after we gave amnesty in 1986. And at that time, I say to my colleagues, the cost, as I mentioned, was 50 percent higher. The Border Patrol has to be 50 percent higher. Well, the number of Border Patrol agents in 1986 was 4,000--4,000. Now we have 21,000. So there was really nothing in the 1986 bill about fencing, about sensors, about other ways to get our border secure. So we learned from that. We learned from that, and this legislation that recently passed through the Judiciary Committee and is now on the floor, as compared with 1986 where they said they would increase the numbers of Border Patrol agents by 50 percent--this legislation appropriates $3 billion in funding for the comprehensive southern border security strategy. No one who is in RPI status will be able to petition for a green card until certain requirements are fulfilled, including the following: E- Verify in use by all employers, an entry-exit system in place, $1.5 billion in additional funding for the southern border fencing strategy that has to be submitted within 180 days of passage of this legislation and signed by the President. It sets the goal of a 90-percent effectiveness rate for all southern border States. If that goal is not reached within 5 years, there will be a bipartisan commission formed and authorized to spend $2 billion in additional funds to secure the border. It will add an additional 3,500 Customs and Border Patrol agents. Remember, in 1986, there was a total of 4,000. It will authorize the National Guard to provide assistance along the border if requested. The National Guard has had tremendous success on our border. No, they don't carry weapons, but they do incredibly important work, and I am glad they don't carry weapons, to tell the truth. The bill funds additional Border Patrol stations and forward operating bases. It increases something called Operation Stonegarden funding, which is vital, in my view, in disincentivizing people to frequently cross the border, and strengthens Border Patrol training. It authorizes funds to triple the border-crossing prosecutions in the Tucson sector. Why do I mention the Tucson sector? Not because I am from the State of Arizona but because the Tucson sector for years has been a major thoroughfare for both people and drugs. The current bill will authorize funds to help States and localities incarcerate criminal unauthorized illegal immigrants. It grants the Department of Homeland Security access to Federal lands. That is a problem on our border, where we have an Indian reservation that is right on the border. They are sovereign nations, and this will authorize a greater ability for us to have access to those lands. There are wildlife refuges we need access to as well. The bill removes the discretion from the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop the southern border strategy and provides the minimum requirements recommended by the Border Patrol. Those are the people on the ground. These are the people who today, in 120-degree heat at the Sonora, AZ, border, are sitting in vehicles and patrolling our border to keep our Nation secure. This is recommended by them and must be included in the strategy that we want to achieve and must achieve, which is 100 percent situational awareness of each and every 1-mile segment of the southern border. The technology list will include, but is not limited to, sector-by- sector requirements for integrated fixed towers, VADER radar systems. These radar track people back from where they came. The list includes unmanned aerial systems--what we know as drones-- fixed cameras, mobile surveillance systems, ground sensors, handheld thermal imaging systems, infrared cameras, thermal imaging cameras, license plate readers, and radiation detection systems. All of these are part of this legislation and the billions of dollars we are going to spend to improve border security. We all admit the border is more secure, but where I disagree with the Secretary of Homeland Security is that it is not secure enough. So we want to prevent the adjustment of status RPI, which is registered permanent status, for people who will be granted it once the passage of this bill is achieved until that strategy is deployed and operational--deployed and operational. This is just to achieve a legal status in this country; also, a technology list before anybody can adjust RPI to green card status. It removes the sole discretion from the Department of Homeland Security to certify the strategy is complete. It requires written, third-party certification to the President and Congress that affirms the elements required by the strategy are operational and capable of achieving effective control of the border. With these tools in place, we can achieve situational awareness and be guaranteed this technology is deployed and working along the border. So I say to my friends who say we do not have sufficient provisions for border security, we will be glad to do more, but let's look at this. Look at what we are doing: billions of dollars of technology as well as additional people, as well as other measures, including the E- Verify. The magnet that draws people to this country is jobs, and if the word is out that unless an E-Verify is in operation--unless a person can get a job in this country they are not going to come here unless it is through a legal means and not through illegal means. We are a nation of immigrants. I would remind my colleagues again, 40 percent of the people who are in this country illegally did not cross our border. They came on a visa that expired. So we need to have footprints and other physical evidence of illegal crossings. It is a tool for Border Patrol agents to identify and locate illegal border crossers. But it is imprecise. That is why we need to have this technology, so we can surveil and have situational awareness of the entire border. The General Accounting Office is an organization all of us over time begin to rely on enormously, and I will quote from them: In terms of collecting data, Border Patrol officials reported that sectors rely on a different mix of cameras, sign cutting-- That is tracking footprints-- credible sources, and visual observation to identify and report the number of turn backs and gotaways. Turnbacks are those we catch and turn back, and gotaways are those we see come across and do not apprehend. Again, quoting the GAO: According to Border Patrol officials, the ability to obtain accurate or consistent data using these identification sources depends on various factors such as terrain and weather. For example, data on turn backs and gotaways may be understated in areas with rugged mountains and steep canyons that can hinder detection of illegal entries. In other cases, data may be overstated--for example, in cases where the same turn back identified by a camera is also identified by tracks. Double counting may also occur when agents in one zone record as a gotaway an individual who is apprehended and then reported as an apprehension in another zone. As a result of these data limitations, Border Patrol headquarters officials said that while they consider turn back and gotaway data sufficiently reliable to assess each sector's progress toward border security and to inform sector decisions regarding resource deployment, they do not consider the data sufficiently reliable to compare--or externally report-- results across sectors. That is why we need this technology. Now, I wish to point out that from the Border Patrol, not from the Department of Homeland Security, I got a detailed list of what they believe is necessary, using their experience, as to the specific equipment and capabilities they need on each of the nine sectors of the border. For example, in the Arizona sectors, including Yuma and Tucson, we need 56 towers, 73 fixed camera systems, 28 mobile surveillance systems, 685 unattended ground sensors, and 22 handheld equipment devices. At points of entry or checkpoints we need one nonintrusive inspection system, and the list goes on. It is a specific list of what the Border Patrol believes we need in each of the nine sectors on our southern border in order to give us 100 percent situational awareness and put us on the path to a 90-percent effective control of the border. So I say to my friends who say we cannot control our border, I respectfully disagree because of what we are doing in this legislation. And those who say we are unable to keep track of what goes on at our border, I would argue that the minimum requirements to be included in the southern border security strategy as provided by the Border Patrol should convince anyone of what we need. I ask unanimous consent that these minimum requirements be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I see my distinguished friend from Vermont on the floor, who is always worth listening to, so I will be brief. I wish to share with our colleagues another aspect of this problem that we really have not talked about very much, and that is the issue of drugs. Drugs are a problem of enormous proportion in this country. We see the effects of illegal drugs such as methamphetamine and others, and we see it is doing incredible damage to our Nation and particularly to our young people. This document is called the Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Threat Assessment of 2013. Now, I am not going to go into a lot of the details, but there are some stark facts about the flow of drugs across our southern border that should disturb all of us. I quote: The Tucson and Phoenix areas remain the primary distribution hubs for ton quantities of marijuana in the southwest region-- Ton quantities of marijuana in the southwest region-- as Tucson and Phoenix-based sources sell throughout the United States. In other words, the drugs come up across the Arizona-Sonora border, they are tracked by guides on mountaintops and into Phoenix, and from Phoenix they are distributed throughout the country. The Phoenix field DEA--Drug Enforcement Agency--Phoenix field division's biannual drug price list for 2012 indicates marijuana in the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas remained stable during the period January 2011 to 2012. Why is that important? Because the only real indication as to whether we are reducing a supply is the price of that supply. So when we see the price of marijuana on the street in Phoenix and Tucson is exactly what it was for the entire year, no matter what we see in the papers and on television of these large apprehensions, unless the price is going up, then we are not apprehending these drugs. So I just want to mention a couple of other facts to my colleagues and why I think we are not addressing the drug problem sufficiently in this legislation. The assessment continues: The retail price of methamphetamine decreased in the Phoenix area and now ranges from $500 to $1,000 per ounce. If there is a terrible drug on the market today, it has to be methamphetamine. I am told that one--one--ingestion of methamphetamine makes a person an addict. So what have we been able to do as far as methamphetamine? The retail price of methamphetamine decreased, which obviously means the supply has certainly not been impacted. Wholesale black tar heroin prices in Arizona have remained stable or decreased slightly, including market stability. Only 35 percent of the HIDTA-- The high density trafficking area-- respondents reported high cocaine availability in their respective jurisdictions. Intelligence indicates cocaine price increases in Mexico and Arizona during the past year may have impacted the supply of cocaine to the Arizona drug market, thus impacting other drug markets. So that is good news. Continuing to read from the threat assessment: The price per kilogram of cocaine increased $5,000 to $6,000 per kilogram in the Phoenix area. My friends, I know my colleagues are very busy, but I would at least have your staff read this threat assessment of 2013 in the State of Arizona. Again, I do not say that because I represent the State of Arizona. But these same people--the Drug Enforcement Agency--will tell you still the bulk of illegal drugs crossing our southern border comes through the Arizona-Tucson sector. So what is my recipe on this situation? Frankly, I do not know a real good recipe because clearly demand is either stable or on the rise in the United States of America depending on to whom you talk. In some places in America, the use of drugs is glamorized. In some places, it is kind of the sophisticated thing to do. I do not think there is any doubt that there are influences in the United States of America that increase the attractiveness of drugs to our citizens. I am not saying I know the answer, but I do think that as we address the issue of border security, we have to understand that if there is a demand for drugs in the streets of every major city in America, they will use all ultralights, they will use submarines, they will use tunnels, they will do whatever is necessary in order to get that supply to where there is a market. I will never forget being down in Colombia, where the government people there showed me a submarine the drug cartel people had built--a very sophisticated submarine. They had hired engineers to build it. It was one that travels under the water--not far but under the water. I said: How much did it cost them to build this? He said: Five million dollars. I said: Five millions dollars. That is a lot of money. The guy said: They make $15 million in one load--in one load. So I am not coming to this floor with a lot of answers, but I am coming to the floor of this Senate and saying that the drug issue in this country is a serious one, and if anybody thinks we are reducing the supply of those drugs, I think the facts contradict that, and it is time we started seriously as a society addressing what is killing our young and old Americans. So, again, I thank my colleagues for their consideration of this legislation. I really came to the floor to convince them that this is a far different situation from 1986. We have gone from 4,000 border agents to 21,000. We have put in all kinds of barriers to the border. But, most importantly, as the Presiding Officer from Delaware pointed out earlier today, we now have technology that can surveil and interdict people from crossing our border. Our challenge is to get it done. I thank my colleague from Vermont for his patience, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business and engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in a couple of minutes the President of the United States will be announcing it is now conclusive that Bashar al-Asad and the Syrian butchers have used chemical weapons, which is, as we all know, a red line which the President of the United States announced that Bashar al-Asad cannot cross. Asad has been very clever in using small amounts rather than large amounts. But the fact is we are not the first country to conclude the Asad regime has used chemical weapons in their attacks on the population of Syria. The President also will announce we will be assisting the Syrian rebels in Syria by providing them with weapons and other assistance. I applaud the President's decision, 93,000 people dead later, over 1 million refugees, and the countries in the surrounding region erupting into sectarian violence, the clear spreading of this conflict into a regional conflict: Sunni, Shia, Saudi, Iran, Russia, all major players. We see that Jordan is overwhelmed with refugees. Lebanon is experiencing sectarian violence. Iraq is unraveling and the entire region is bordering on chaos, not to mention the massacre and genocide that is taking place in Syria. I applaud the President's decision, and I appreciate it. The President of the United States had better understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground of the balance of power. These people, the Free Syrian Army, need weapons and heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircraft. They need a no-fly air zone. Bashar Asad's air assets have to be taken out and neutralized. We can do that without risking a single American airplane. We can do it by cratering the runways with cruise missiles, moving the PATRIOT missiles closer to the border, and protecting a safe zone where they can organize, they can work, and they can coordinate with the civilian side of the Syrian National Army, and they can have a chance of success. Today--thanks to Iranians, thanks to Russia, thanks to Hezbollah pouring in by the thousands, thanks to people flowing in from all over the Middle East--including from Iraq back into Syria--they are losing. They are being massacred and they are sustaining incredibly heavy casualties. It is terrible. I applaud the President's decision. I applaud the fact that he has now acknowledged what the French, the others, and all the rest of us knew, that Bashar Asad is using chemical weapons. Just to provide weapons to the Syrian National Army is not enough. We have to change the equation on the battleground. If I might say, I have seen and been in conflicts where there was gradual escalation. They don't win. If all we are going to do is supply weapons, then there will be a commensurate resupply by the Iranians, Russians, and others. I thank the President for acknowledging the Syrians are using chemical weapons and massacring their own people. I applaud his decision to provide additional weapons. Every ounce, every bone in my body knows that simply providing weapons will not change the battlefield equation, and we must change the battlefield equation; otherwise, we are going to see a regional conflict, the consequences of which we will be paying for for a long time. I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my colleague if he remembers when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared before our committee well over a year ago and said, unsolicited, it is inevitable, it is inevitable that Bashar Asad will fall? Does the Senator remember that?