Ken Salazar

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the leader and great Senator from Illinois for his leadership in putting together the comprehensive immigration reform package. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. SALAZAR. Fifty-four seconds. Let me just conclude. Mr. President, I hope as we move forward as a Senate we can find the courage in this body tonight to turn down this political gimmick; that in this body there are statesmen and people of principle who believe we ought to put our national security interests ahead of politics; that there are people in this body who believe we ought to address the economic realities of America's farmers and ranchers and construction workers, construction companies, and others; that there are people in this body who can look at the future of the Western Hemisphere, including our relationship with Latin America, and recognize that at the end of the day the fence that is being proposed today is going to be inimical to the long-term interests of the United States of America as we unite as a global community to deal with the issues of terrorism around the world; that this fence is going to be something that is going to hurt us in building those alliances. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this fence bill. And I urge we do it in a bipartisan way. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my friend from Wyoming.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I think the objection just heard against the logical amendment proposed by my friend from New Mexico demonstrates the political gimmickry going on in the Chamber this evening. His amendment simply would have said that there would be discretion for the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to make a determination as to where it would make the most sense for these fences to go. The objection to that amendment demonstrates what is happening here, and that is that the people who are supporting this legislation believe Washington knows better than our experts in the executive branch of Government and the people who live along the borders; it demonstrates, again, the political rawness that is behind this fence amendment being proposed tonight, which I expect will pass because people want to score political points by using this in the immigration debate in our country. Again, the fence by itself is not a solution. The fact of the matter is that more than half of the people who are here illegally in the U.S. came here legally. Their visas expired and they are in the United States. So putting a fence on the border as proposed in this legislation all by itself will not resolve the comprehensive immigration issues we are facing in our country today. It wasn't so long ago that this Chamber went into a vigorous debate. People disagreed. I disagreed with my friend from Alabama, but we agreed finally on some issues around the fence. There was debate that took place over a comprehensive solution, a fundamental national security problem. There were 23 Republicans who came together with about 40 Democrats and said that we will put our Nation's security first and we will address our national security; we will address the economic security issues of our country, including the agricultural jobs, which my friend Senator Craig has been so eloquent about today. We were able to get that done. Yet, today, in the waning hours of this session, we are moving forward with a political gimmick because people want to ride this horse of immigration on this fence-only proposal on the way to victory in November. Mr. President, I don't believe this legislation is good for the long- term interests of the United States and the Western Hemisphere. I believe that we as a Senate can do much better. I urge my colleagues to oppose the fence bill.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today I honor John Stencel, who will soon retire as president of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union. John has been a tireless advocate for rural America, and he can retire with the comfort that he has profoundly influenced an entire generation of farmers and ranchers in Colorado and across the Nation. For almost 50 years John has worked with the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, during which time he has served as a steady and pragmatic compass. He early on saw the benefits of cooperatives so that small farmers could add significant value to their products. He has embraced the potential of biobased fuels as an innovative pathway to power production and transportation fuel needs. He has recognized that responsible stewardship of the land should be a top priority for farmers and ranchers, as clean water, energy conservation, and biodiversity all enhance our society. John is a tireless advocate for the future sustainability of the rural way of life. His leadership has shaped the next generation of rural citizens, serving as the president of Colorado 4-H Foundation, vice president of the Colorado Future Farmers of America, and as a board member of the Colorado State University Board of Agriculture. His leadership in these organizations ensures that the traits that have characterized him, that of perseverance, dedication, and moral fiber, will manifest themselves in future generations of agricultural leadership. However, my deep respect for John Stencel isn't only based on his involvement with these organizations; it is based on the common values that underlie those efforts and have driven his policies and agendas. My respect is based on his commitment to sustain and strengthen family farm and ranch agriculture, and to preserve the rural way of life we know and love. These values are embodied by John Stencel. John has been an influential and indispensable guide, and though he is retiring from his service to the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, I take comfort in the longevity of our friendship and his steadfast leadership for rural America, and I wish him nothing but the best.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, please allow me to take a moment to commemorate the loss of a Colorado police officer last week. He was killed in an act of senseless violence, a victim of a random shooting while he was on duty. Detective Michael Thomas proudly served a 24-year career with the Aurora Police Department, and had been promoted to detective last April, where he worked on narcotics cases. Mike Thomas graduated from Hinkley High School in Aurora in 1972, and joined the U.S. Air Force. There, he became a mechanic for F-16 fighter planes, and eventually wound up working with the Air Force's precision flight unit, the Thunderbirds. But after 10 years in the Air Force, Mike retired, leaving behind his Air Force uniform of service for another: that of the Aurora Police Department. During his career in the patrol and canine units and as a detective, Detective Thomas was decorated for service more than 12 times. Among the awards Detective Thomas received was the Medal of Honor, the Aurora Police Department's highest award, in 1992. Detective Thomas received the award for disarming a suspect armed with a knife in October 1991. Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates said last week, ``There was no one who didn't like Mike Thomas.'' Stories abound of Detective Thomas's generosity of spirit, his thoughtful nature, and attention to detail that made him such an outstanding policeman. One fellow officer recalled the impression that Thomas made upon him about following through: after every call, Mike Thomas would make sure to ask those he was helping if they were satisfied with the service he had provided them. Detective Thomas will be interred today at Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver. He will be surrounded by his family of the Aurora Police Department, and in the thoughts and prayers of police officers and their families around our Nation. To Detective Thomas's daughter, Nicole, I can only offer the profound thanks of our community and Nation during this time of grief. Your father's sacrifice for the greater good fills each of us with deep respect and humbles all of us.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

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

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to talk about the importance of immigration reform in a comprehensive manner. We are in the last week of this legislative session before the November elections. It is obvious to me, in terms of what is going on in the country, that the leadership of the Senate, the Congress, and the White House has decided to allow politics to triumph over the very fundamental national purposes for which we have tried to work together with respect to comprehensive immigration reform. It is my hope that those speaking for principled immigration reform stand up and say that we are not going to let politics triumph over national security, that we are not going to let politics triumph over the rule of law, which is a central tenet of our Nation, basic to the stability of our Nation, and that we are not going to let politics triumph over the economic and human and moral realities with which we deal in immigration. As we move forward in the days ahead, dealing with this fence legislation, legislation that would create a fence across Arizona and Texas and Mexico and the possibility of a fence between the United States and Canada, I hope the voices of reason that brought Republicans and Democrats together on the floor of this Senate to say we needed comprehensive immigration reform, once again will say we reject piecemeal legislation that deals with creating a fence only because we know that will not be the answer for the comprehensive immigration reform we need. When I look at the map which has come out of the House of Representatives which would create a fence which would essentially follow the entire border of Arizona and large pieces of the Texas border, it seems to me what we are doing here in Washington is we are telling those States that we know better here in Washington where the fence ought to be located and we will authorize this fence to be built only in these particulars locations. We are, in fact, not listening to the Department of Homeland Security and to our Border Patrol officers who know there are places where it is appropriate for us to put a fence. Indeed, in our legislation here in the Senate, what we did is we authorized the construction of a fence, but we also recognized there was latitude to be given to those experts who are in charge of making sure we create a secure border. When I look at what we are trying to do in this debate which will take place with respect to the Secure Fence Act on the floor this year, I would like us to look back and see what was being said around the country with respect to immigration reform just a few months ago when we were debating immigration reform here on the floor of the Senate. Our Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, said this about the fence: Fencing has its place in some areas, but as a total solution, I don't think it's a good solution. Secretary Chertoff, on February 9, 2006, also said the following: When you're dealing with the desert, for example, we don't advocate putting a fence in the desert because it's more efficient for us to intercept people when they're in the desert at a place of our own choosing as opposed to being forced to guard the entire fence, right up against the fence. From our friend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, speaking about the fence, back in those days: ``I think that's contrary to our traditions,'' he said, noting that ``99.9 percent'' of illegal immigrants ``come across to seek a better life for their families. . . .'' This is from Attorney General Gonzales. He continued and said: I don't know if that would make much sense. We've got a 2,000-mile border. Because of natural geography, we don't need a fence . . . along certain portions of that border. Obviously, we believe it does make sense to have fencing along certain areas of our border. We do have several hundred miles of fencing currently, but the objective here is to make sure we're being smart in securing our border. Commissioner W. Ralph Basham from Customs and Border Protection said: It doesn't make sense, it's not practical. We are in the last week of the legislative session, doing our business prior to the time we go out for elections. So what has happened here? What has happened here is people have decided to ride this horse of immigration reform, with all the divisiveness it has created around the country, to try to gain a political advantage in these November elections. It would be my hope that Democrats and Republicans of this body, who stood with the President in calling for comprehensive immigration reform, would stand by those principles and say: We are going to push forward for immigration reform that really works for our country because it addresses all aspects of the immigration issue we face in America. We as a Senate did that several months ago. I was very proud to have worked with people such as Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Senator Durbin, Senator Kennedy, and a whole host of other people who were involved in putting together what became a comprehensive immigration reform package. It was a law-and-order bill that we debated here on the floor for weeks and was ultimately adopted by a significant bipartisan group of Senators. It was a law-and-order bill because it dealt in a comprehensive way with the issue of immigration. It dealt in a comprehensive way with the recognition that we have a national security crisis on our hands that requires us to deal with immigration reform in a comprehensive way. The components of the legislative which we subsequently shepherded through the Senate included border security, strengthening our border. It included immigration law enforcement so we make sure that we as a nation uphold our tradition of being a nation of laws; that we enforce our immigration laws here in our country. It also includes huge registration penalties applying against those who have broken the law and have come to this country illegally. The law and order bill deserves the support of the Senate. It is my hope as we move forward in the debate on immigration this week that we return to that legislation and move that legislation as an amendment to the legislation which has been introduced in this body. Let me again quickly walk through to refresh my colleagues' memory about the components of this legislation which we felt so urgently was needed to deal with national security and the economic and human reality relating to the immigration issue. First, we all want our borders secure. We recognize we can't have a secure nation if we can't deal with the threats we face with homeland security unless we secure the border. We recognize the United States of America as a sovereign nation has a sovereign right to protect its borders. We need to make sure we are protecting our borders. We included in our legislation many aspects of a cross-border security solution. They included 12,000 new Border Patrol agents which we would add to our Border Patrol effort to make sure we have the right manpower to address the border security issue. In that legislation through an amendment that was sponsored by our friend from Alabama, we created additional fences that would be established along the border, some 370 miles of fences that had been established and constructed in critical locations along the border. We provided new criminal penalties for construction of border tunnels to address what has happened in places where there are currently fences across borders; where people have created tunnels to dig under those fences to come to the United States. We added new checkpoints and points of entry throughout the entire border. We expanded the exit- entry security system at all land borders and airports. Our legislation dealt in a comprehensive way moving forward to make sure we were creating a secure border. That was a key component of legislation we are dealing with. Beyond securing our borders, which is very essential as we put together this effort on comprehensive immigration reform, we also recognized that we as a nation must enforce our immigration laws. So we included in our legislation significant provisions to ensure we are enforcing those laws. We added 5,000 new investigators to help us enforce our laws. We established in that legislation 20 new detention facilities so we can effectively process those who are caught here in our country illegally. We included provisions in our legislation that would reimburse States for detaining and imprisoning criminal aliens. That is an issue which has affected local and State governments throughout our country. We included in our legislation requirements for a faster deportation process. We increased penalties for gang members, for money laundering, and human trafficking. We increased document fraud detection, and we created new fraudproof immigration documents for people who are here in this country with biometric identifiers. Finally, we expanded authority to remove suspected terrorists from our country. Looking at what we did in coming up with an immigration enforcement package in our country, we said we were going to ensure that we as a nation of laws would have a legal system in place that would in fact be enforceable and that we would put the resources behind that enforcement. We also dealt with another issue; that is, an issue that has caused so much controversy around this country. Essentially, it had to do with the question what do you do with 11 million or 12 million human beings currently residing in our country. We felt as a group of Democrats and Republicans working on this legislation that we needed to come up with a realistic and humane way of approaching the 12 million people who are here illegally in our country. These are the people who probably have cleaned the hotel rooms and motel rooms where most Americans stay. These are the people who are working at construction sites in each one of the our States around the country. These are the people who are the backbone of the agricultural workforce in places such as Idaho, Colorado, and throughout our great Nation. So we decided to come up with a program where we would deal with these 12 million people in an honest, realistic, and straightforward manner. We said we would require them to pay a fine. They have broken the law. They will be punished. They have broken the law and they will be punished by the requirements that they pay a fine for their illegal conduct. We require that they register with the U.S. Government. That is not a requirement for any U.S. citizen, but we require these people to step forward, to come out of the shadows and to register themselves with the U.S. Government. We require them to pay additional registration fees. We require them to learn English. We require them to learn American history and government. We require them to pass medical exams. And we require them to be continuously employed with a valid temporary visa. We came up with a program that the President himself has talked about in positive terms, where essentially we would bring these people to come out of the shadows. We require them to go to the back of the line. We require them to pay a penalty. We require them to learn English, and we require them to learn about American history as a realistic way of approaching the reality of 12 million human beings who live here in our country today. Let me come back and talk a little bit about the piecemeal approach-- this political approach which is being talked about here in the Congress today. It is in fact a piecemeal approach because all of those who have studied this issue recognize that unless we deal with immigration issues in a comprehensive way, it will not work. Many of us in this Chamber have had many conversations with the President of the United States about the need for comprehensive immigration reform. On August 3 of this year, in a public statement, the President said: I'm going to talk today about comprehensive immigration reform. I say comprehensive because unless you have all five pieces working together it's not going to work at all. This is the President of the United States saying it is not going to work at all unless we do this in a comprehensive manner. In another statement, he said the following: We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish these five objectives. That was the President of our country. He said in another statement on May 15 of 2006 the following: Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant, and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground. That is from the President's Presidential address of May 15, 2006. On May 15, on that same day, he said the following: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all. Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law. That is what the President of the United States has asked us as a Congress to do. That was what Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber came together to do several months ago. It would be my hope as we consider the legislation which we will be debating this week that we take the statements of the President, the statements that have been made by members of his administration, and statements made here on the floor, and that we address this issue of immigration reform in a manner that is truly going to work as opposed to addressing it in a piecemeal manner as has been suggested by the legislation which we will be considering. I conclude by asking my colleagues in the Senate today to make sure as we move forward to not let politics triumph over the national security issue of the broken borders that we face today; that we as a Senate do not let politics triumph over the rule of law which makes us have the kind of country we can all be very proud of because we abide by the rule of law; that we as a country make sure we stand up for the human and moral issues that are very much on stage in this debate over immigration reform. Those issues should take precedence over a political agenda which is obviously unfolding with this legislation that has been brought to the floor of the Senate today. Finally, I ask the White House, President Bush, to end the silence on this issue. President Bush has been working on this issue for a long time. He is a former Governor of a border State. He knows what is at stake on this issue. I hope the White House can provide this body and the House of Representatives with the kind of guidance they were providing us when we were dealing with the issue some months ago. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. As a Hispanic who grew up in the Southwest, I can say that the impact of MALDEF's establishment has been profound. As the Hispanic community's legal advocate, MALDEF has taken on cases throughout the country. In my own State, their work has helped improved access to equal education for Hispanics. Judge DeAnda was also actively involved with Hispanic organizations like the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, and the American G.I. Forum. By working with MALDEF, they ensured that Hispanic veterans, who gave the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield, were not denied burial in our veterans cemeteries. Judge DeAnda's leadership was visionary and was recognized by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, who nominated him to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Texas. At the time of his appointment, he was only the Nation's second Mexican-American Federal district judge. Despite all of his contributions to the Latino community, Judge DeAnda never sought the limelight. He only strove to ensure equal rights for all in this country through his thorough representation and fair consideration of those who came before his court. I find his own words to be the most telling. He is said to have told a group of law school students once, ``You will find law to be a most satisfying career because of the service you can give your fellow man. I know of no other endeavor in which you can bring about healthy change and make a decent living. You can live well and do good.'' Judge DeAnda certainly did good and we are grateful to him for his service.

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Senator Reid, for your recognition of Judge DeAnda. One of his most significant cases came in 1954, when he worked on and argued a little-known but enormously significant case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I should also mention that Judge DeAnda, together with a legal team of three other Mexican-American attorneys, were the first Mexican-American attorneys to argue before the highest Court in our land. In Hernandez v. Texas, Judge DeAnda believed that their client, Pete Hernandez, could not receive a fair and impartial trial unless members of other races served on the jury. Through careful research, Judge DeAnda showed that Hispanics in Jackson County, TX, were essentially barred from serving as jurors despite comprising a significant proportion of the population at the time. In fact, no Hispanic had served on any jury in Jackson County for a quarter century. The Supreme Court agreed and overturned the murder conviction. They unanimously ruled that Mexican Americans and all other racial groups in the United States had equal protection under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Despite this major legal victory, the Hernandez case was overshadowed by a companion case, Brown v. Board of Education, which was decided just a week later. But the results of this decision are evident in American courtrooms everywhere. Because of this decision alone, Judge DeAnda holds a special place in our country's history and our quest to become a more inclusive America.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama and the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, let me, at the outset, say that I very much appreciate the work we have done on the alternative fuels legislation that Senator Thune and I have been sponsoring and advocating. I would hope it is legislation we can move forward to yet in this Congress. I think when we look at the issues that are confronting our world, from the issues of terrorism, to the issues of energy independence, there is an opportunity for us to do something significant that will move us down that track of energy independence. Last year, in the passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, we acted together in a bipartisan way to move that legislation forward. I am hopeful the legislation Senator Thune and I have been sponsoring will, in fact, be legislation that can, in fact, become law and reach the President's desk as a result of the work of this Congress. I appreciate his work and his advocacy in trying to find out where the problems lie with respect to this particular bill. Mr. President, I would like to turn my attention and remarks to the border fencing bill, H.R. 6061, which is before the Senate today. First, let me say that as I look at where we have gotten today with respect to immigration reform in this Congress and here in America, we are now at the point where we are playing political games and gimmicks and tricks with what is a very important national security issue. At the heart of the immigration reform debate, which has consumed so much of our time in this Senate and this country over the last year, we recognized it is in America's national security interests for us to develop a comprehensive immigration reform package. We recognized, as well, that we are a nation of laws, and as a nation of laws we should be enforcing our immigration laws in the United States of America. And, finally, we recognized there is a reality of 12 million undocumented workers who live somewhere in the shadows of this society and that we ought to move forward and create a realistic program that addresses those 12 million human beings who live in the United States of America today. Yet somehow today we have gotten away from that comprehensive approach to immigration reform, to look at what is a 1-percent solution. It is a small part of the solution that we need to deal with for immigration reform. Yet it has been chosen that we move forward to discuss this issue because there are political agendas at stake. It is the House Republican leadership that has refused to go along with the comprehensive approach which President Bush and this Senate have advocated, which has resulted in us coming to the point where we are now talking about a fence-only bill to deal with this very complex issue of immigration reform which has gone unaddressed by this country and by this Congress decade after decade. President Bush, himself, in his address on August 3, 2006--this year--said: I'm going to talk today about comprehensive immigration reform. This was just a month ago--6, probably 8 weeks ago, where he said: I say comprehensive because unless you have all five pieces working together it's not going to work at all. That was the President of the United States. Earlier on, the President had said: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all. Again, this is President George Bush, former Governor of Texas, who has been working on this immigration issue for a long time. He, as President, reached that conclusion. He said: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all. Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law. Unfortunately, we appear to be failing in getting a comprehensive immigration reform package to the President that he can sign. Instead, we have devolved to the point where there is a piece of legislation which the House of Representatives has passed which is a fence-only bill. This fence-only bill is only a very small part of the solution we face to this very complex problem. From my point of view, it is a cop-out and a political gimmick being played on the people of the United States. Let me remind people that it was not so long ago that in this Chamber, by a large bipartisan majority, Democrats and Republicans came together and said we can pass a comprehensive immigration reform package that addresses the issues that the President and the country want to be addressed in immigration reform. It was a law-and-order bill, which we enacted out of this Senate. It was a bill that dealt in a straightforward manner with border security, with enforcement of immigration laws, and also applying penalties and registration to those people who had come forward from the shadows and registered to take them out of the shadows. I want to briefly review the comprehensive nature of that bill and some of the components that caused me to support the bill as the right way for us to address immigration reform. First, we said we would do border security. We are not afraid to do that. We ought to do border security because it is our right as a sovereign nation to do border security. It is our right to make sure that we are protecting America against terrorism coming across our borders. For us, as we worked on that comprehensive bill, border security was very important. In our legislation we added 12,000 new Border Patrol agents. We created additional border fences--in fact, a 370-mile fence--through an amendment authored by my friend from Alabama. We provided new criminal penalties for construction of border tunnels, which we find in places where there are fences today. We added new checkpoints and points of entry throughout the border between Mexico and the U.S. We expanded exit-entry security systems at all land borders and airports. So, yes, this legislation was a very tough border security bill. It was part of the comprehensive approach that we took. Secondly, we said that it is not enough to just strengthen our borders. We need to do more in terms of what we do inside our country. We said we would do more with respect to immigration law enforcement. Instead of continuing the patterns and practices of looking the other way in this country, we said we as a nation of laws are going to enforce our immigration laws. We said we would add 5,000 new investigators in our legislation. We said we would establish 20 new detention facilities. We said we would reimburse States for detaining and imprisoning criminal aliens. We would require a faster deportation process. We would increase penalties for gang members, for money laundering, and for human trafficking. We would increase document fraud detection. We would create, very importantly, new fraud-proof immigration documents with biometric identifiers. And we would expand authority to remove suspected terrorists from our country. So it was tough in terms of our saying that as a nation of laws we will enforce the laws. We didn't stop there. We said there is something else that needs to be dealt with in America--those 12 million people who are cleaning hotel rooms, working out at the construction sites, and the people who probably provided you with your breakfast this morning. There are those 12 million people here who are human beings, and we need to deal with them in a humane and moral fashion. We said to them that we will require there to be some punishment and registration with respect to your presence in the United States of America. You must go to the back of the line, and, eventually, over a long 12-year period, after we put you in this period of ``purgatory,'' you may end up becoming a citizen. We said we would require a fine for their illegal conduct of several thousand dollars. We would require them to register with the U.S. Government. I don't have to register with the U.S. Government; I am a citizen. We are requiring these people to register with the Government. We require them to obtain a temporary work visa. We require them to pay an additional $1,000 fee. We require them to go to the back of the line of the legal immigration process. We require them to pass a background check so we would make sure they would all be crime-free. We would require that they learn English. We would require them to learn history and government. We would require them to pass a medical exam. We would require them to prove continuous employment with a valid temporary visa. Mr. President, that was a comprehensive immigration reform law that was passed by a bipartisan group of Senators in this Senate, and it is legislation that we should be proud of. Today, we are being asked to forget that work we did, forget the comprehensive nature of that reform, and to take a simple piece of legislation on a fence and say that we have dealt with the immigration problem of our country. That is simply, again, a piecemeal approach to dealing with the issue, a political gimmick being used in this election year. It is a gimmick that we should stand together as United States Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, and reject it and say we are going to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform. Finally, with respect to this fence, when you look at what people have said about the fence, some have said it reminds them of the Berlin Wall. Some have said that it is un-American. But I would like to quote from some of the members of the administration who, frankly, have been working with us on a comprehensive immigration reform package. Secretary of Homeland Defense, Mr. Chertoff, said: Fencing has its place in some areas, but as a total solution, I don't think it's a good total solution. We had a fence in our comprehensive reform bill, but it was not this fence that essentially creates a fence all across the wide chasm of Arizona and most of Texas. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this about the fence: I think that's contrary to our traditions. He noted that ``99.9 percent'' of illegal immigrants ``come across to seek a better life for their families,'' not to make trouble. That was his quote with respect to the fence. He also said: I don't know if that would make much sense. We've got a 2,000-mile border. Because of natural geography, we don't need a fence or border along certain portions of that border. Yet, today we are looking at legislation proposed in the form of H.R. 6061 that would create a fence-only solution to this very complicated problem we are facing. In conclusion, I believe Americans deserve better from the U.S. Congress and from us in the Senate. We can, in fact, move forward with comprehensive immigration reform and deal with this issue of national security importance, of economic security importance, and of the moral importance of how we deal with the 12 million human beings who live in America today. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I intend to speak for probably 10 minutes. And I don't know what my friend from Vermont planned on, how much time he will consume after my statement.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my comments, Senator Leahy be recognized for his comments on the pending business.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, as this Congress comes to a close, it is important to ask: Have the Congress and the White House done everything possible to make the American people safe? Unfortunately, I am afraid the answer is ``No.'' Just over a year ago, we all witnessed in horror the tragically inept response to Hurricane Katrina. Despite claims that DHS and FEMA had put their house in order after the Hurricane, just last week a GAO report raised concerns that adequate safeguards are still not in place to properly respond to a catastrophe. Despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission gave 5 Fs and 12 Ds in its final report, an appalling number of the Commission's recommendations have still not been implemented--including recommendations regarding emergency preparedness and response, transportation security, border security, and intelligence reform. Too many of our first responders still lack adequate equipment, resources, communications interoperability, and--just as important-- training. Making matters worse, as local law enforcement agencies are forced to take on more homeland security responsibilities, the administration keeps proposing cuts to law enforcement funding. Our borders are broken and lawless, allowing millions of people to cross the border without the government knowing who they are or why they are here. Meanwhile, border security programs remain under-funded and the National Guard has been strained to the limit. Funding for air cargo security has declined by about 25 percent over the past 3 years, while a comprehensive baggage screening system is not expected to be in place until 2024. Incredibly, there are still no minimum standards regulating security at our chemical facilities which remain vulnerable to attack. For reasons which I cannot understand, the Republican leadership has either refused or been unable to schedule floor time for a strong, bipartisan chemical security bill which has already been reported out of committee. The American people deserve better. They deserve a Congress that will put partisan politics to the side and put homeland security first. So while I am proud to stand here and support this important, bipartisan port security bill, I do so with the understanding that it is only a first step on the long road toward adequately protecting our homeland. Almost 5 years to the day after the September 11 attacks, more than 2 years after the 9/11 Commission warned us about the need to address port security, and more than half a year after the Dubai Ports World controversy brought port security to the front pages, the Senate is finally addressing this important issue. The wait is unfortunate, because the issues at stake are serious. Over 11 million shipping containers enter the United States via our ports each year. Those containers carry roughly 2.4 billion tons of goods worth more than $1 trillion--and some expect those numbers to double over the next 20 years. It goes without saying that an attack on our ports would cause economic catastrophe. The average shipping container originating overseas will pass through, on average, over a dozen intermediate points before it arrives in the U.S.--each providing an opportunity for terrorist infiltration. Weapons smuggled into the country through one of our ports could cause unspeakable loss of life. Only about 6 percent of containers arriving at U.S. ports are currently inspected before they enter the country and that we do not have a comprehensive plan to restart the economy in the event of a terrorist attack on our ports. So I am happy that we have finally taken up this important, bipartisan piece of legislation--and I commend Senators Collins, Lieberman, Murray, Inouye, and Stevens for their leadership on the issue. And while the legislation isn't perfect, it would take important steps toward securing our ports and protecting our economy. First, I am pleased that the bill establishes a pilot project in 3 foreign seaports to screen every container entering the United States from those ports. This is a long-overdue first step. I am also pleased that the bill requires the screening for radiological material of each container entering the United States. The bill also includes important provisions requiring DHS to develop enhanced protocols governing the resumption of trade in the event of an attack on our ports and a comprehensive strategic plan regarding maritime cargo security. I am also pleased that the bill improves and expands key port security programs such as the Container Security Initiative and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism; and that it authorizes important risk-based port security grant programs. Improving our port security isn't impossible. Just look at Hong Kong. While we inspect only about 6 percent of incoming containers, the port of Hong Kong has implemented new screening procedures that achieve 100 percent inspection. While this bill won't get us to 100 percent inspection overnight, it is an important--and long overdue--first step. Furthermore, I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment to create a Rural Policing Institute--RPI--at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC. FLETC does a fantastic job training Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials. But FLETC does not have sufficient resources dedicated specifically toward training rural law enforcement officials. So the Rural Policing Institute would evaluate the needs of rural and tribal law enforcement agencies; develop training programs designed to address the needs of rural and tribal law enforcement agencies, with a focus on combating meth, domestic violence, and school violence; export those training programs to rural and tribal law enforcement agencies; and conduct outreach to ensure that the training programs reach rural and tribal law enforcement agencies. As Attorney General, I learned that a small investment in law enforcement training can pay great dividends. By ensuring that our rural and small town law enforcement officers have the training they need to protect their communities, the RPI will help law enforcement agencies better protect the safety and security of their communities. Finally, I am proud to cosponsor an amendment that would make the Transportation Technology Center, Inc.--TTCI--in Pueblo, CO, a part of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium--which is the principal organization through which the Department of Homeland Security identifies, develops, tests, and delivers training to state and local emergency responders. The TTCI does an outstanding job training first responders from the rail and mass transit sectors, the chemical industry, government agencies, and emergency responders from around the world. Each year, roughly 1,700 first responders go to Pueblo to participate in TTCI's outstanding training programs. TTCI's inclusion in the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium will allow it to improve its already outstanding services. Our first responders are the finest in the world, and they deserve the best possible training and facilities. This bill is an important step in that direction.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the emergency agricultural disaster assistance package. At the outset, I commend my colleague, Senator Kent Conrad, for having taken the leadership role in making sure we are taking care of the needs of family farmers and ranchers across America. I also congratulate Senator Nelson for his leadership on this issue this morning. Last night, as America went to sleep, much of America--the farmers and ranchers who bring us the food security in this country--continued to work way into the night. I can assure you that across this country, where those combines are running until 11 or 12 or 1 o'clock in the morning, those farmers are working. Today probably starting at about 3 or 4 in the morning, there were many farmers who were out there trying to bale their hay with the leftover dew from the nighttime, making sure they were baling what was left in a way that would bring them the maximum production. While the rest of America slept, America's farmers and ranchers were working very hard to make sure that the food security of this country was, in fact, maintained. As those farmers and ranchers went home to get a few hours of sleep, what was probably on their minds was whether their family farm or ranch was going to be there the following year and whether they were going to be able to pay off their operating lines of credit for the mortgage payments at the local bank. The fact is, rural America is in trouble. Farmers and ranchers are very much in trouble because of two factors which have been totally out of their control for the last couple of years. One of them is drought and the other is the high cost of fuel. Those two factors combined create a disaster emergency that is unfolding across America today. On this picture to my left, you will see a cornfield in Kit Carson, CO, which turned completely brown because of the severe drought in my State. This drought we see going on in Colorado has had this kind of effect not only this year but for the last 7 years. Colorado is now in its seventh year of a very severe drought that will have a very major impact on the opportunities and the economies related to these farmers and to the farm community. Second is the high cost of fuel which has affected most Americans. The fact is that most Americans are upset by the very high cost of fuel we are paying. Farmers and ranchers consume a tremendous amount of gas and diesel as they operate these machines all across the farms in America. Today, farmers are paying twice as much as they were 2 years ago for the cost of fuel. Yet, during that same timeframe, the cost of the produce we have from these farms and ranches does not increase very much. We are facing a disaster emergency which is very much going to affect all of rural America. I hope all of my colleagues in the Senate will join us in passage of the emergency agricultural disaster assistance package. I am also hopeful that we can sound a loud drumbeat that will be heard all the way to the White House, all the way to President Bush because he needs to send a signal that he is going to stand up for rural America and that he is going to support us as we try to bring emergency assistance to the farmers and ranchers of America. The last time we passed a similar bill in the Senate, it was killed in the House, frankly, because it did not have the support of the White House. Rural voters who gave support to President Bush ought to be knocking on the door of the White House and making sure the President understands that rural America is important and that this disaster emergency package is very important as well. Amendment No. 4936 Mr. President, I wish to spend the remainder of my time speaking on behalf of and in support of the Real Security Act which was offered by Senator Reid. The fact is, this legislation is a very important piece of legislation as we look forward to creating the safest America we possibly can. The fact is that 5 years after 9/11, we are not yet safe in America. We know our ports are not secure. We know law enforcement does not have the training they should have. I would imagine most Americans frankly today are feeling that we are not living in a secure world as we were 8 or 9 or 10 years ago and that our world has continued to become increasingly dangerous. The components of the legislation that was set forth by Senator Reid are simple steps to move us in the right direction in creating greater security for the people of America here in our homeland. Very simply, the legislation first and foremost implements the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission has been heralded as perhaps the most successful commission in the last 50 years in America. It handled a very important question of how can we make America safe. It came up with a series of recommendations. Many of those recommendations today, some 4 years later, have not yet been implemented. The first point that has been made with the Real Security Act is we will implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Second, the amendment also equips our intelligence community to fight against terrorists. For the first time in 18 years, this Republican- controlled Congress has failed to pass the Intelligence authorization bill that would give the CIA the resources to conduct aggressive and effective intelligence gathering. Senator Rockefeller has eloquently spoken to this issue. It is an abysmal neglect of duty on the part of the United States of America and its Government if we don't reauthorize the intelligence act as has been done in the past 28 years. Third, the amendment as proposed by Senator Reid will make sure we are investing additional money to secure our ports, our rails, our roads, our airports, our chemical and nuclear plants, and mass transit systems. We only need to look at what has happened in the United Kingdom and in Spain and other places to know that our rails, our mass transit systems, and our ports are, in fact, not at all secure today. Fourth, we would refocus America on the war on terror by making sure we continue to pursue Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Fifth, the amendment would provide better updated tools so we can bring these terrorists to justice. Five years after 9/11, there are still hundreds of terrorists who need to be prosecuted and brought to justice. We can't afford to wait any longer. Finally, the amendment would, in fact, bring about a new understanding of how we ought to move forward with the war in Iraq. I believe strongly that the Real Security Act which has been proposed by Senator Reid should be supported by our colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues for unanimous consent that following the remarks by Senator DeMint, I be recognized for 6 minutes on the time remaining on this side.

Mr. SALAZAR. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SALAZAR. Reserving the right to object, I would like to see a copy of the amendment. We may not object, but I would like to see a copy of the amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cantwell be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss my amendment to create a rural policing institute within the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I thank Senator Chambliss, Senator Isakson, and Senator Pryor for cosponsoring this very important legislation. Law enforcement matters should be nonpartisan, so I am particularly pleased to see my friends from both Arkansas and Georgia on this amendment. I want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by the 800,000 State and local law enforcement officials and first responders throughout our Nation. They are at the forefront today of our efforts to make sure our homeland is more secure. In Colorado alone, there are 14,000 of these law enforcement officers. Too often, these heroes are on their own when it comes to help from the Federal Government. This is especially true when it comes to rural America. This is wrong because our law enforcement officials and first responders are at the forefront of the effort to not only protect our communities but to ensure our homeland is secure. Mr. President, along with some of my colleagues on the Senate floor, I have often referred to these rural communities as ``the forgotten America.'' Indeed, rural America is the backbone of our country, but it is too often neglected by Washington and political figures who have lost touch with the people in the heartland. Nowhere is this neglect felt more acutely than in the small-town law enforcement agencies of my State and of every State in the country. These are small communities that have been confronted with decreased funding, with increased homeland security responsibilities, and with the great toll of the meth epidemic that is devastating rural America. Many people don't realize that most American law enforcement agencies serve rural communities or small towns in very large proportions. Indeed, of the nearly 17,000 police agencies in the United States, 90 percent of them serve a population of under 25,000 people. And of those, most of them operate with fewer than 50 sworn officers and, in many cases, with 3, 4, or 5 officers. I am well aware of the difficulties these small-town law enforcement agencies face day to day. As attorney general in Colorado, I had the honor of working with 14,000 of some of America's finest law enforcement officers. Many of them are from rural Colorado--sheriffs such as Jerry Martin, from Dolores County, and the other sheriffs in my State. These people are always asked to do a lot more with a lot less. Their pressure is great. The growing demands on rural law enforcement and shrinking budgets have hit training programs particularly hard. Many rural law enforcement agencies simply don't have the budget to provide officers with adequate training. Furthermore, even those agencies that can come up with the money cannot afford to take police officers off the street to get additional training. As attorney general and chairman of the Colorado Peace Officers Standards and Training Board a few years ago, one of my proudest accomplishment was working on a bipartisan basis to help establish a $1 million annual training fund for Colorado's 14,000 peace officers, with the focus on the smaller law enforcement agencies in Colorado. That is where our amendment on the floor today comes in. FLETC does a fantastic job in training Federal, State, and local law enforcement in our Nation. But FLETC doesn't have enough resources dedicated specifically toward training rural law enforcement officers. The rural policing institute would do the following: First, evaluate the needs of rural and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout our Nation, so that we know exactly what the challenges are that we are facing in those rural communities. Secondly, it would develop training programs designed to address the needs of rural law enforcement agencies, with a focus on combating meth, domestic violence, and school violence. Third, it would export those training programs to rural and tribal law enforcement agencies. Fourth, it would conduct outreach to ensure that the training programs reach rural law enforcement agencies. As attorney general, I learned that a small investment in law enforcement can pay great dividends. Mr. President, when we look at 9/11 today and the fact that we are all united in this effort to try to make America safer, and we look at who it is within our country who ultimately will be out there to stop the next attack on America, I would submit there is a very good chance it is going to be the deputy sheriff in a small county somewhere in America or a member of the police force in some small community making sure that a water tank is not contaminated with some kind of biological contamination or it is going to be somebody else who understands that some kind of a network has come together to try to take the fertilizer that our farmers use in rural America and make a bomb out of it. It is going to be rural law enforcement that is going to make sure they are going to help us prevent those kinds of attacks on America. When we think about the 800,000 men and women in law enforcement across America, they are on the frontlines, in terms of making sure we have a more secure homeland. I cannot think of a more important amendment than to establish a rural police training institute under the auspices of FLETC, to ensure that these 800,000 men and women have the right kind of training so that through their eyes they can help us in our march and our efforts to make America more secure. We have a long way to go. I hope our colleagues will support this bipartisan amendment to establish a rural police training institute. I yield the floor.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can call up amendment No. 4935.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to reflect upon one of our Nation's most trying hours. Five years ago, our Nation embarked on the greatest test of its courage and mettle since the ``greatest generation'' rose to the challenge of defending freedom in World War II from the forces of hatred and fascism. As the 9/11 Commission observed, the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was a beautiful morning in New York and here in Washington, DC, before the peace was shattered. None of us will forget those hours that morning, hours which saw our Nation face unimaginable tragedy. This defining moment awoke within every American the grim knowledge that we are a nation at war with hatred and fear and that we must rise to the challenge. Each of us will remember where we were, what we were doing, when America turned to face this new challenge with sorrow and resolve. In the morning hours of September 11, starting at 8:46 a.m., we experienced the 21st century's ``Pearl Harbor'' moment. Americans stood transfixed by the images we saw unfolding before us: the brutal violence of intolerance and the unimaginable courage of our heroes on the ground and in the air striving valiantly to prevent it. By 10:38 a.m., America began to truly understand the scope of what had happened: the thousands of innocent Americans lost, the destruction of the Twin Towers and damage to the Pentagon, the dawning of a new age in our Nation's proud history. Each American grappled to understand this moment in history as it unfolded before us, trying to make sense of senselessness. As a nation, we continue to struggle with it each day. Like all Americans, I have spent many hours seeking meaning from and understanding of the events of September 11, 2001. It has not been an easy task, nor will it ever be completed. But we know the importance of remembering those who are not here with us now--the innocent passengers aboard those four planes and in the Towers and the Pentagon; the courageous first responders who charged into the chaos to try to save their fellow man; the brave servicemembers who have given their lives around the world to protect the freedoms we continue to enjoy, to engage our enemies wherever they may run and hide. The people who perished during the September 11 attacks were not simply victims: they were mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and friends and neighbors. We remember them for the shared jokes and laughter, the debates and challenges, the quarrels and sometimes heart-wrenching disagreements, the fellowship and love of family that bind us together. Mr. President, 9/11 represented a crossroads for our Nation: we had the choice between fear and hope, between appealing to our higher angels and succumbing to our darkest demons. A year from now, children starting kindergarten will never have known a world before 9/11. It is my greatest hope that a century from now, when schoolchildren look back on 9/11, it will be viewed not as the beginning of a time of darkness over our democracy but as the clarion call for us to protect and defend the fundamental rights and liberties we enjoy, a rallying to the fundamental beliefs that we as Americans hold so dear. It is the least we can do, out of respect for those who left us that day. Those lost to us on September 11 and the struggles afterwards shall never be forgotten. They remain in our hearts, the source of our resolve. As we have in the past, America shall meet this challenge with honor, wisdom, and an unbreakable spirit. As a nation, we recommit ourselves to never giving in to those who would misrepresent faith to spread hate, fear, and violence. We know that the gifts bestowed upon us are the gifts of faith, hope, and love. We shall eschew the politicking of fear and instead choose the unity of purpose that our times require. Five years after that day, our Nation recommits itself to remembering the tremendous loss we suffered as a country. We seek to honor the sacrifices made on September 11 by renewing our faith in America itself. I stand here as sure today as I was when I went to sleep on the night of September 10, 2001, that it is the promise of our common goals of hope and progress, not fear and violence, that deliver freedom and security both at home and across the globe, for all people.

Mr. SALAZAR

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a moment to honor the memory of a fallen Coloradan: Army Cpl Christopher Franklin Sitton of Montrose. Corporal Sitton was a medic with the 10th Mountain Division, serving in Afghanistan since March. He had just turned 21 and graduated from Montrose High School just 3 years ago. Now, instead of having his whole life ahead of him, he has been taken from his friends, family and country by a roadside bomb in Kunar, in eastern Afghanistan. Chris Sitton was looking forward to a medical career. His interest in medicine reached back to his childhood, where as a young man in Quinlan, TX he would accompany his father, a volunteer with a rescue group, on emergency calls. Corporal Sitton's time in the Army was marked by excellence, not unlike his time in high school. Secialist Sitton entered the Army nearly 3 years ago, in January 2004. In his service, Specialist Sitton received three commander's coins, recognizing his exemplary performance in the Army. One was personally handed to him by a four-star general. This achievement is remarkable to many but not to those who knew Christopher Sitton. Chris was a natural leader. A standout track star, he is pictured mentoring a younger teammate in a photo that hangs in his high school track coach's office. Young people naturally gravitated to him, and Chris returned their enthusiasm with a smile one friend described as big as Texas itself. As a young man, Chris Sitton was an accomplished Eagle Scout. He was an avid athlete, a musician and outdoorsman, enjoying his time hiking, skiing and camping. But perhaps most notable, Chris Sitton left a mark on those around him as someone who was always helping others, putting them before himself. GEN Douglas MacArthur once reflected, ``The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars.'' Chris' legacy as a son, friend and mentor, his willingness to put others before himself, shows how fundamentally he understood this calling to find a better tomorrow. Corporal Sitton sought to make the world a better place in his every action, to bring us to a better understanding of the ties that bind humanity together. To Corporal Sitton's parents, Judy and Steve Sitton, I know that no words can ease the grief you feel at the loss of your son. I and this entire Nation share, in some small way, your painful sorrow. Corporal Christopher Sitton and his entire family will reside in my prayers tonight and remain in my thoughts. Marine Corporal Jordan C. Pierson