Senate Denies Funds for New Border Fence("Kerriosis" spreads through Senate)

The White House fence

Thank you for the clarification. I mistook the content as referring to Mr. Sessions amendments to fund the fence.

Just as well, this further illustrates the absurdity inherent in this process (that is, voting for a fence, then voting against funding a fence).

The White House has a fence.

And you can bet most of the elected live in some type of gated/guarded community, as well.

In most major cities, many apartment complexes are gated. Many newer residential subdivisions are gated/guarded. Most homes and autos and offices and buildings have locks.

Please remove your front and back door on your house in case I wan't to drop by and borrow anything, raid your fridge, or grab an aspirin- I'd hate to disturb you with having to let me in.

Your typical highrise apartment building is, for all intents and purposes, gated.

My two cents for addressing this problem:

You can't heal the wound (those already here) if you can't stop the bleeding (those still coming in). If a wall is what it takes to stop the bleeding, get 'er done. If there is another viable solution, something that WORKS, let's do that.

The only way America wouldn't be a beacon of hope etc. is if we continue to let absolutly everybody who wants to come in, in. Legal immigrants don't want criminals and terrorists living amongst them any more than we do.

Just think how much fencing could be paid for with the $14 + billion spent on Boston's Big Dig (aka Kennedy's Hole).

"$1.8 Billion for fencing? What the heck is this fence made of? Platinum?"

24 Karat gold plated platinum. WHy don't they just hire the Israeli company that built the wall in Israel.

It is a GOOD symbol.

you are being naive.

A fence is ABSOLUTLY VITAL to the border security.

Particularly the various proposed smart fences.

It is 100% absurd to think "enforcement" can be done throwing papers around. It is about as effective as outlawing sadness.

Your typical highrise apartment building is, for all intents and purposes, gated.

I lived in downtown Dallas for a year in the early 90s. I was shocked the first time I went to the closest grocery store. It had an armed guard watching the parking lot. I noticed several other area businesses always had armed guards.

I had previously lived in the MidCites, closer to Ft. Worth, and the stores there didn't typically have armed guards in the parking lots.

I now live in a small town. Sam, the night watchman, only shows wrath if you wake him up and bother him.

Where had you rather spend your money? A fence or this mess?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3622.IS:

North American Investment Fund Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 3622 IS

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 3622
To authorize the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund between the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 29, 2006
Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL
To authorize the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund between the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy.

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 `North American Investment Fund Act'.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INVESTMENT FUND.

The President is authorized to negotiate with the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico to establish a North American Investment Fund (referred to in this Act as the `Fund') by--

(1) agreeing to certain amendments to the November 1993 Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank; or

(2) negotiating an agreement with the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico to establish and administer the Fund.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of the Fund shall be--

(1) to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy;

(2) to reduce the income gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States; and

(3) to promote economic development in Mexico in the areas of infrastructure, education, technology, and job training.

SEC. 4. PROJECTS FUNDED.

(a) In General- Grants shall be awarded from the Fund for projects to carry out the purposes described in section 3, including projects--

(1) to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade between Mexico and Canada, and Mexico and the United States;

(2) to encourage the development and improve the quality of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education throughout Mexico;

(3) to expand the deployment of communications and broadband infrastructure throughout Mexico, with emphasis on rural and underserved areas; and

(4) to expand job training and workforce development for high-growth industries in Mexico.

(b) Project Selection-

(1) IN GENERAL- The agreement described in section 2 shall include guidelines for determining which projects will receive financial assistance from the Fund.

(2) PRIORITY- In selecting grantees to carry out projects described in subsection (a)(1), priority should be given to projects in the interior and southern regions of Mexico that connect to more developed markets in the United States and Canada.

SEC. 5. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND.

(a) In General- The agreement described in section 2 shall require the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States to contribute to the Fund, subject to the limitations under subsection (b).

(b) Limitations on Contributions by the United States and Canada- The agreement described in section 2 shall include provisions that permit Canada and the United States to contribute to the Fund if the Government of Mexico--

(1) increases the tax revenue collected by such Government, with the goal of annually collecting an amount of such revenue that is equal to 18 percent of the annual gross domestic product of Mexico; and

(2) carries out a program of reforms to increase private investment and economic growth, reduce poverty, and maintain economic stability in Mexico.

SEC. 6. TERM OF THE FUND.

The agreement described in section 2 shall require that the Fund--

(1) operate for an initial period of 10 years; and

(2) cease operations at the end of such 10-year period, unless the Governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States agree to extend the period of operation beyond such initial period.

SEC. 7. REPORT.

Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Government of Mexico complies with the criteria described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 5(b), and once every 180 days after such date of compliance and before the finalization of the agreement described in section 2, the President shall submit a report to Congress detailing the progress made by the Government of the United States to establish the Fund in accordance with this Act.

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display

Here is the roll call vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00200 .

"It would further erode America's image in the world. And, I am not talking about war on terror type of anti-Americanism, but rather the United States as a beacon of hope and freedom and openness."

Pure bilge.

People are taking advantage of our "hope and freedom" and NOT entering legally, costing the US taxpayers billions a year.

American citizenship is a privilege.

Good. Occassionally even the senate gets one right.

1.8 Billion is about one fifth of what illegals COST the California taxpayer per YEAR.

Just to put it into perspective.

The savings to our nations taxpayers in two years would be astronomical.

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Not having read the detail of the amendment for appropriating the funds, I'm not willing to argue the point that the "fence" described in the original bill is the same as the "fence" described in the appropriations amendment. They could be different. They could be the same. Without more information the point cannot be debated, nor should it. The issue here is the apparant double-cross where some Senators vote for the fence but end up voting against building it.

Nonsense! I have studied the issue of a fence in detail. I know Kris Kobach personally, and have met with him at immigration meetings. The 370 miles of fence INCLUDES the old fence plus the 500 miles of vehicle barriers.

The Homeland Security Secretary was required to construct not less than 370 miles of triple-layered fencing which may include portions already constructed in San Diego, Tucson and Yuma Sectors and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in other areas along the southwest border that the Secretary determines are areas that are most often used by smugglers and illegal aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the United States.

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---29

Allen (R-VA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Lott (R-MS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

NAYs ---71

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
CORNYN(R-TX)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

CORNYN. KYL.

All I can say is do you know what "may" means?

I'll be damned. Dewine actually voted for it.

Methinks he's scared out of his mind about November, and rightly so.