Senate Votes to Fund Fence

[JaJae]

Senate Passes Bill on Building Border Fence

By CARL HULSE and RACHEL L. SWARNS
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The Senate on Friday approved the building of 700 miles of fence along the nation’s southwestern border, fulfilling a demand by conservative Republicans to take steps to slow the flow of illegal immigrants before exploring broader changes to immigration law.
The Senate vote, 80 to 19, came as lawmakers finished a batch of legislation before heading home to campaign. It sent the fence measure to President Bush, who has promised to sign it despite his earlier push for a more comprehensive approach that could lead to citizenship for some who are in the country illegally.
House Republicans, fearing a voter backlash, had opposed any approach that smacked of amnesty and chose instead to focus on border security in advance of the elections, passing the fence bill earlier this month. With time running out, the Senate acquiesced despite its bipartisan passage of a broader bill in May.
Congress also passed a separate $34.8 billion homeland security spending bill that contained an estimated $21.3 billion for border security, including $1.2 billion for the fence and associated barriers and surveillance systems.
“This is something the American people have been wanting us to do for a long time,” said Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, whose state would be the site of substantial fence construction.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff praised the money for border security. He said it would “enable the department to make substantial progress toward preventing terrorists and others from exploiting our borders and provides flexibility for smart deployment of physical infrastructure that needs to be built along the southwest border.”
Some Democrats ridiculed the fence idea and said a broader approach was the only way to halt the influx. “You don’t have to be a law enforcement or engineering expert to know that a 700-mile fence on a 2,000-mile border makes no sense,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate. Nevertheless, more than 20 Democrats moved behind the measure.
The fence bill and homeland spending were among security-related measures the Republican leadership was pushing through in the closing hours to bolster their security credentials.
On a 100-to-0 vote, the Senate earlier sent a $447.6 billion bill for the Defense Department to the president. It included $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a sum that will bring the total spent on those wars and other military antiterrorism operations to more than $500 billion.
Lawmakers also sped through a port security bill that would institute new safeguards at the nation’s 361 seaports, while a Pentagon policy measure stalled in a Senate dispute.
“Passage of this port security bill is a major leap ahead in our efforts to strengthen our national security,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and chairwoman of the Senate homeland security panel.
At the urging of conservative groups and the National Football League, among other interests, the port security measure carried legislation cracking down on Internet gambling by prohibiting credit card companies and other financial institutions from processing the exchange of money between bettors and Web sites. The prohibition, which exempts some horse-racing operations, has previously passed the House and Senate at different times but has never cleared Congress.
“Although we can’t monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws,” said Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, who lobbied to add the crackdown to the port bill.
Because Congress failed to finish nine other required spending bills before the Sept. 30 deadline, the Pentagon measure also contained a provision to maintain spending for other federal agencies through Nov. 17 to give lawmakers time to finish the bills in a post-election session.
In an end-of-session appeal to conservatives, Senate Republicans also brought up a measure that could lead to criminal charges against people who take under-age girls across state lines for abortions, but they were unable to get enough votes to overcome procedural obstacles, and the bill stalled.
The atmosphere in the Capitol was somewhat tense as lawmakers were set to head back to their districts for what is looming as a difficult election. And the sudden resignation of Representative Mark Foley, Republican of Florida, after the disclosure of sexually suggestive e-mail messages he reportedly sent to teenage pages, added to the turmoil.
The fence legislation was one of the chief elements to survive the broader comprehensive bill that President Bush and a Senate coalition had hoped would tighten border security, grant legal status to most illegal immigrants and create a vast guest worker program to supply the nation’s industries.
Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, said the vote would build credibility with conservative voters who have been skeptical of the government’s commitment to border security.
“They have been under the impression that Congress has been a lot about conversations about securing the border and not about action,” said Mr. Chambliss, who opposes the legalization of illegal immigrants and voted against the Senate immigration bill. “This is real action.”
But Republicans and Democrats alike acknowledged they were leaving the country’s immigration problems largely unresolved. The border security measures passed do not address the 11 million people living here illegally, the call for a guest worker program by businesses or the need for a verification program that would ensure that companies do not hire illegal workers.
And while Congress wants 700 miles of fencing, it was appropriating only enough money to complete about 370 miles of it, Congressional aides acknowledged, leaving it unclear as to whether the entire structure will be built. Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said Friday that Mr. Bush intended to keep pressing Congress for a broader fix. She said the White House was hopeful that Congress would return to the issue after the elections.

I think it's interesting to note that both senators from Mass. didn't vote for it. Kennedy refused to vote and Kerry voting against it. Clinton who possibly looking to run for president crossed the isle and voted for it. Other big names in the Democratic camp: Bayh, Boxer, Byrd and Obama all voted for it.

My state joins Mass as being one of the handful of states who voted against it.
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

There's no word on when or if it will be built, but the budget for it has been passed overwhelmingly. 80-19 with Kennedy obstaining his vote. So you figure it would have been 80-20... or a 4 - 1 ratio.

This is great news. It shows that 4/5ths or 80% of our politicians are supporting a wall between US and Mexico to control illegal immigration.

NJ would have had riots and protests if our Senators voted for this, so it comes to no surprise they threw away their votes. Only one Republican Chafee (R-RI) voted Nay.

It seems Republicans are united on this issue and the Democrats are mostly certain... especially if they've been on TV lately talking the big talk about need for border control.

I wonder how the illegals will handle this. Hopefully they'll go on strike for a week and fuck over their employers some more.

[JaJae]

Text of the bill:

Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)
HR 6061 PCS
Calendar No. 615 109th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 6061
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 14, 2006

Received and read the first time
September 15, 2006

Read the second time and placed on the calendar
AN ACT
To establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Secure Fence Act of 2006'.

SEC. 2. ACHIEVING OPERATIONAL CONTROL ON THE BORDER.

• (a) In General- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following--

• • (1) systematic surveillance of the international land and maritime borders of the United States through more effective use of personnel and technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras; and

• • (2) physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful entry by aliens into the United States and facilitate access to the international land and maritime borders by United States Customs and Border Protection, such as additional checkpoints, all weather access roads, and vehicle barriers.

• (b) Operational Control Defined- In this section, the term `operational control' means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

• (c) Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made toward achieving and maintaining operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States in accordance with this section.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING AND SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS IN BORDER AREA FROM PACIFIC OCEAN TO GULF OF MEXICO.

• Section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--

• • (1) in the subsection heading by striking `Near San Diego, California'; and

• • (2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:

• • `(1) SECURITY FEATURES-

• • • `(A) REINFORCED FENCING- In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors--

• • • • `(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;

• • • • `(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry;

• • • • `(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;

• • • • `(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and

• • • • `(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.

• • • `(B) PRIORITY AREAS- With respect to the border described--

• • • • `(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along such area by May 30, 2007, and that fence construction is completed by May 30, 2008; and

• • • • `(ii) in subparagraph (A)(v), the Secretary shall ensure that fence construction from 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to 15 southeast of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry is completed by December 31, 2008.

• • • `(C) EXCEPTION- If the topography of a specific area has an elevation grade that exceeds 10 percent, the Secretary may use other means to secure such area, including the use of surveillance and barrier tools.'.

SEC. 4. NORTHERN BORDER STUDY.

• (a) In General- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a study on the feasibility of a state of-the-art infrastructure security system along the northern international land and maritime border of the United States and shall include in the study--

• • (1) the necessity of implementing such a system;

• • (2) the feasibility of implementing such a system; and

• • (3) the economic impact implementing such a system will have along the northern border.

• (b) Report- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that contains the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

SEC. 5. EVALUATION AND REPORT RELATING TO CUSTOMS AUTHORITY TO STOP CERTAIN FLEEING VEHICLES.

• (a) Evaluation- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall--

• • (1) evaluate the authority of personnel of United States Customs and Border Protection to stop vehicles that enter the United States illegally and refuse to stop when ordered to do so by such personnel, compare such Customs authority with the authority of the Coast Guard to stop vessels under section 637 of title 14, United States Code, and make an assessment as to whether such Customs authority should be expanded;

• • (2) review the equipment and technology available to United States Customs and Border Protection personnel to stop vehicles described in paragraph (1) and make an assessment as to whether or not better equipment or technology is available or should be developed; and

• • (3) evaluate the training provided to United States Customs and Border Protection personnel to stop vehicles described in paragraph (1).

• (b) Report- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report that contains the results of the evaluation conducted under subsection (a).

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2006.
Attest:
KAREN L. HAAS,
Clerk.
By Marjorie C. Kelaher,
Deputy Clerk.
Calendar No. 615
109th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 6061
AN ACT
To establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.

[WickedLou9]

I think it's a waste of money. As long as there are people here in the US willing to hire them, and as long as they need jobs.. they will continue coming. They will find a way.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think it's a waste of money. As long as there are people here in the US willing to hire them, and as long as they need jobs.. they will continue coming. They will find a way.

I think we need the wall as well as strengthening our laws and the enforcement of them. Walls have been proven to be effective in history.

[ethyl]

Well, at least they're finally going in some kind of direction for border security. It's been a long time with the "citizenship path" vs. "enforcement first" crews bickering at a standstill.

I certainly expect the nationwide immigrant protests to start back up again and fall on deaf ears.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think we need the wall as well as strengthening our laws and the enforcement of them. Walls have been proven to be effective in history.

This is correct...

I agree though we need to punish those that employ illegals.

[kinggovernor]

a decent first step by we need much more

[KatKanPlay]

I feel like its a band aid stretched over a 3" gash. When I hear legislation come down that directly addresses financial consequences for employers, I will feel more like we are beginning to actually work on a cure for the problem rather than a simple band aid.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I feel like its a band aid stretched over a 3" gash. When I hear legislation come down that directly addresses financial consequences for employers, I will feel more like we are beginning to actually work on a cure for the problem rather than a simple band aid.

that is why we need a guest worker program with biometric id cards. Right now you can't fault business for accepting documents that look legit, they have no way of checking anyways

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is why we need a guest worker program with biometric id cards. Right now you can't fault business for accepting documents that look legit, they have no way of checking anyways

Most of them are using that as an excuse anyways.

Many know who is legal and who is not.
A simple background check would uncover a deception as well. It's just not worth it to them.

[Scrum]

And I would rather we spent the money on enforcing the laws we already have in place.

Deport illegals who get caught by police or the IRS, bust employeers, really go after smugglers who bring them across, and patrol the border better. I would also like to see them get cut off public services and deported if they are caught trying to access them.

If we did these things well a fence would be a waste of money.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is why we need a guest worker program with biometric id cards. Right now you can't fault business for accepting documents that look legit, they have no way of checking anyways

I work for a General Contractor, believe me they dont want to check.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Most of them are using that as an excuse anyways.

Many know who is legal and who is not.
A simple background check would uncover a deception as well. It's just not worth it to them.

well the "loophole" kinda of exists, a biometric id and guest worker program would end that loophole

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

well the "loophole" kinda of exists, a biometric id and guest worker program would end that loophole

And I am all for it....

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I work for a General Contractor, believe me they dont want to check.

of course not, they only lose by checking. The law isn't really enforced now, but a guest worker program with huge fines for employing illegals would fix that, at least I believe

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is why we need a guest worker program with biometric id cards. Right now you can't fault business for accepting documents that look legit, they have no way of checking anyways

Yes, there is a way. Any employer can verify a SSN. If the SSN belongs to Nancy Smith, and you are looking at Pedro Sanchez, that should be a red flag.

They just don't do it.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Yes, there is a way. Any employer can verify a SSN. If the SSN belongs to Nancy Smith, and you are looking at Pedro Sanchez, that should be a red flag.

They just don't do it.

how do you verify it? Call up the SSA? Do they give out that information over the phone?

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

how do you verify it? Call up the SSA? Do they give out that information over the phone?

I believe they do. I heard the guys on the radio (The John and Ken Show) one day, and they talked with someone from SSA and they were explaining the procedure to verify SSN's...especially since so many in CALIFORNIA, are STOLEN and used in identiity theft.