[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 41 (Tuesday, April 4, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2763-S2772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending 
business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2454) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to provide for comprehensive reform, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Specter/Leahy amendment No. 3192, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Kyl/Cornyn amendment No. 3206 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     make certain aliens ineligible for conditional nonimmigrant 
     work authorization and status.
       Cornyn amendment No. 3207 (to amendment No. 3206), to 
     establish an enactment date.
       Isakson amendment No. 3215 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     demonstrate respect for legal immigration by prohibiting the 
     implementation of a new alien guest worker program until the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to the President and 
     the Congress that the borders of the United States are 
     reasonably sealed and secured.
       Dorgan amendment No. 3223 (to amendment No. 3192), to allow 
     United States citizens under 18 years of age to travel to 
     Canada without a passport, to develop a system to enable 
     United States citizens to take 24-hour excursions to Canada 
     without a passport, and to limit the cost of passport cards 
     or similar alternatives to passports to $20.
       Mikulski/Warner amendment No. 3217 (to amendment No. 3192), 
     to extend the termination date for the exemption of returning 
     workers from the numerical limitations for temporary workers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, now that we are back on the immigration 
bill, I thought I might for a few moments discuss in general some of 
the provisions in it that I think are extremely important and that are 
being discussed by a good number of my colleagues. I understand the 
Senator from Colorado wishes to discuss in general an amendment he will 
offer later. I hope no one would object to that because it does not 
actually offer the amendments but allows the debate to move forward 
while the chairman and the ranking member are determining the schedule 
of events here.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield, without 
losing the floor, for a suggestion?
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, may it be in order to ask consent that when 
the distinguished Senator has finished speaking, the senior Senator 
from Florida be then recognized to speak, all sides retaining their 
rights, of course, on the offering of amendments?
  Mr. CRAIG. With the understanding following that the Senator from 
Colorado will be recognized? Does that fit his schedule?
  Mr. ALLARD. That will work out fine for me.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask further consent that following the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Menendez, be then recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S2764]]

  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for at least a few moments this morning, we 
have an order to continue discussion on this critically important 
legislation. Let me say in general that S. 2454, attempting to be a 
comprehensive reform of national immigration law, setting forth very 
strict border control efforts, authorizing tremendous expenditures for 
the purpose of controlling our borders, is a bill that finally is 
awakening the Senate. Some of us have been engaged in the debate on 
immigration for a good number of years, but many of my colleagues have, 
for whatever reason, chosen not to be. They are busy. But there is no 
question in my mind and I think the minds of almost every Senator today 
that the American people have said immigration reform is a priority, 
border control is a priority: Congress, get with it. We no longer can, 
nor should we, tolerate within our boundaries whatever that number is--
7 million, 8 million, 9 million? If you want to listen to Lou Dobbs on 
television, he will say it is 20 million. Lou Dobbs doesn't know, nor 
do we know, exactly how many undocumented foreign nationals are here.
  We do know some fundamental basics. If we do not control our borders, 
if we do not control in-migration, in time we can lose our character as 
a country. We are a nation of immigrants and we are proud of it. We 
are, as has been said by many, over a historic period of time, a 
melting pot of the world. It has proved us as a nation to be unique. It 
has given us our strength. It makes us something no other nation is. 
How many people can become Japanese? How many people can become an 
Italian? How many people can become a German? Any one of those 
nationalities can become an American. Why? It is the uniqueness of our 
country.
  But in becoming an American, we have always put parameters around it. 
We have always said you had to study, you had to learn, you had to move 
yourself into the American culture and the American dream. You had to 
have, and we allowed, an assimilation. What we have lost in the last 
two decades by not controlling our borders is that very assimilation in 
the style with which it operated in the past.
  Many of us, and most Americans, wish to regain that. It isn't that we 
deny our heritage; we are tremendously proud we are a nation of 
immigrants. We want to continue that tradition. It is our strength. But 
in doing so, you control your borders, you control the in-migration, 
and you do so in an orderly fashion.
  If we control our borders, if we are successful in shutting them down 
and only allowing to move through that which is legal, in an orderly 
fashion, what do we do then? With the unknown number of some 8 or 10 
million foreign nationals who are here illegally, what do we do with 
them? Mr. President, 99 percent of them are hard workers. Many have 
been here for years. They are a part of our economy. They are a part of 
our lifestyle. Most of them are contributors. Very few of them are 
detractors.
  A few are. A few are criminals, and they ought to be arrested, if we 
can find them, and they ought to be thrown out of the country. But what 
do we do if we take all the rest and toss them out? Who fills those 
jobs? Who meets those demands? Who does the kind of work about which 
the average American citizen today says, ``I won't do that,'' yet it is 
critically important--for the food on the supermarket shelves of 
America, for the beds in the resorts and the hotels, for the landscape, 
for construction, for the oil patch. You name it. Illegal foreign 
nationals are everywhere in our economy today whether we like it, 
whether we are willing to admit it. They are here in part because of 
our negligence, but they are also here because they have been needed, 
because our economy asked them to come and there were no restrictions 
for them to gain entry other than to walk across a border that was 
unguarded and uncontrolled.
  In that act they broke the law, our law. This bill tries to fix it. I 
can't tell you on face value it does. What I do know is it will take 
billions of dollars and a lot of trained personnel to go job site by 
job site to secure those who are illegal and to move them through a 
process toward legality or out of the country. I am not sure we are 
prepared to do that yet.
  I am convinced of one thing: We can control the borders and we 
should.
  Starting nearly 5 years ago, I recognized this in American 
agriculture because American agriculture came to me. I have worked with 
them closely on a variety of issues. And they said: Senator, nearly 70 
percent of our workforce is illegal and we know it, and it is wrong and 
we want to fix it because we don't want to be operating on a shaky 
base. We need these people to pick the crops, to harvest the crops, and 
to process the crops. We need them on a timely basis. They need to be 
reliable. The current system is broken and it doesn't allow it. It only 
identifies 40-some thousand legal agricultural workers a year, and 
there are 1.2 million that are necessary. The system is broken.
  I began to work with them. We worked collectively and came up with a 
bill. We worked with Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate. We 
worked with Hispanic groups, we worked with labor unions, we worked 
with the farm organizations, and we produced a bill known as AgJOBS. We 
looked at all of the compromises that had to be made. We tried to 
recognize those who had been here illegally but had been here for a 
long while, and those who were just coming and going--the day laborers 
on the Mexican-Arizona-California border who come across to work for 
the day and go back across at night to their homes.
  This is a phenomenally complicated issue. S. 2454 is the bill that I 
and others crafted known as AgJOBS.
  For just a few more minutes, I will walk you through one portion of 
it. It is a two-part bill.
  It deals with those who are currently here working in agriculture, 
and then it goes over and reforms the H-2A guest worker program, to 
streamline it, to take out the bureaucracy, to make it function in a 
way that is the kind of program that many are talking about today, a 
seasonal worker, guest worker program, to come to work, to go home but 
to recognize the need to treat those folks humanely, to offer to them 
the jobs that Americans won't do, to assist where we can, to recognize 
that our economy needs them and they ought to be dealt with 
appropriately.
  How do we then deal with this 8 million? Let me talk to you this 
morning not about 8 million but about 1.2 million, just a small window 
but I believe an opportunity while looking through that window to see 
what the rest of America is like and in part what those 8 million 
illegals might be like. It is to recognize them, it is to identify 
them, it is to have them come forward if they have been here 3 years--
since 2003--working and can demonstrate that they worked for 150 days 
in agriculture and then to allow them to earn the right to stay by 
continuing to work in agriculture for another 150 days up to 5 years.
  It is a pilot program. It allows only 1.2 million during that 5-year 
period. It allows them to adjust and to gain a blue card--legal working 
status.
  Is it amnesty? Well, somebody will call it that. Others have already 
called it that. I call it earning a status. They have to pay a fine. 
They have to pay a $500 fine. They have to have a background check. If 
they have a legal record of misconduct and criminal conduct, they don't 
qualify. They will have to be deported.
  So there is a true tightening of the relationship with these workers, 
but it is a clear understanding that those workers are needed and 
necessary in the workforce. Agriculture, like no other business, is 
what it is at the time it is. By that I mean when the fruit is ripe, 
you pick it. If it isn't picked, it rots on the vine.
  Much of what we do in agriculture is hand labor. It is intensive, 
hard work, backbreaking in the hot Sun kind of labor. The average 
American citizen says: I don't do that kind of work anymore but, oh, do 
we love the abundance of the supermarket shelf.
  There are people who will do that work. Many of them are here as 
migrant workers, illegal foreign nationals doing just that work. They 
see it as an opportunity because any job in America is better than an 
entry job in Mexico. They come here, earn money, and 90 percent of them 
want to go home after they have earned their money. They go back to 
their nation, Mexico. They can live better than they have

[[Page S2765]]

ever lived because of the money they earned in America--in the United 
States. But 90 percent of them say: We don't want to become American 
citizens. We want to come and work. We are Mexicans. We like being 
Mexicans. We are proud of that.
  The story goes on and on. I will spend more time on the details of 
this issue.
  There are those offering amendments to change the AgJOBS provision. 
Some may pass, I don't know. I believe we have a quality product that 
has been years in the making, not only before the Judiciary Committee 
but Democrats and Republicans alike. Farm workers and farm 
organizations and American agriculture have been meeting for 5 years to 
try to identify the problem and to correct it. That work effort is here 
in this bill. It is a quality work effort. It is one that ought to be 
defended. It is one that clearly recognizes all of the differences in 
the American economy today and the uniqueness of agriculture.
  Let me close with this thought. The average illegal in our country 
today will say when asked--and they have been asked by people they 
trust--how long do you stay in an agricultural job? It has been said by 
some--and I believe it is true because it has been said by those who 
are here in those jobs--they say: We see agriculture as the door to 
entry. We stay there a couple of years. We learn the ropes. We get to 
know your country a little better, and then we go out to other jobs--
construction, home building, the service industry and oil patch, and a 
variety of other areas across the country where day laborers, 
backbreaking labor, hard labor is required as the uniqueness of that 
particular place of employment.
  So agriculture is kind of the window, the door of entry that many 
come and work in before they go elsewhere. That is why it is important, 
no matter what we do, that we try to get this right, to control our 
borders, to begin to identify where the borders are controlled, where 
people go, and what our needs are and what their needs are and to treat 
them appropriately and humanely.
  That is the essence of a part of the bill. Other amendments will come 
as we work through this bill in the coming hours and in the coming 
days.
  To all of my fellow citizens who are listening and watching, the 
Senate is now focused. You have asked us to deal with immigration in 
one form or another. There are 100 different ideas on how we get it 
done, some very Draconian and some very forward-looking. I think AgJOBS 
kind of fits in the middle. I think it kind of sorts out the problem. 
It is a realistic, practical approach to identify how the fruit of 
America literally gets picked in a reasonable, responsible fashion 
while at the same time treating those who do that work in a humane and 
appropriate way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is it my understanding that I 
will not offer the amendment but will speak on it?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida is correct. I am 
told that amendments will be offered on the side. It would be either 
the Democrat side or the Republican side. There would be objection but 
Senators agree to speak about amendments and are encouraged to speak 
about amendments they intend to offer.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. At some 
point I will be offering amendment No. 3220 and amendment No. 3221. I 
want to take this opportunity to explain those amendments as we are 
coming down to the moment of truth and what we are going to do on an 
immigration bill.
  It has been the position of this Senator that we have two goals to 
achieve. It is essential in immigration reform that we achieve both of 
these goals. One is the protection of our borders, not only for the 
purpose of immigration but also for the purpose of protection from 
terrorists infiltrating the country. The other goal is the protection 
of our economy.
  Where we have in effect American amnesty, as my colleague from 
Florida has already described, under the existing situation with 11 
million illegal aliens or undocumented workers in this country and 
nothing has been done about it--in effect, amnesty is the de facto 
situation.
  How do you accommodate the economic needs of major industries in this 
country with the workforce that they need and have 11 million 
undocumented workers come out of the shadows so that they can have a 
legal status? That is the balance that we are trying to achieve.
  On the one hand, border security, on the other hand, the provision of 
an economic workforce that will keep the economic engine of this 
country humming.
  I might say that three of the major industries that employ 
undocumented workers are three big industries in the Presiding 
Officer's State and in my State of Florida; that is, agriculture, the 
construction industry, and the service industry, particularly the 
travel and tourism industry which is very apparent in our States.
  Finding that right balance is what this is all about. What I want to 
do is offer a couple of amendments that will help us enhance our border 
security provisions more so than the existing committee bill that has 
come out of the judiciary. Specifically, what I would like to see based 
on the GAO report and also the inspector general's report, which both 
recommended that with the enhanced electronic surveillance and new 
kinds of technological devices such as unmanned aerial vehicles, that 
we integrate all of this in more of a comprehensive system that can 
talk to each other.
  For example, if we are talking about electronic sensors on a fence, 
the electronic signal goes off. Instead of that just coming, as the 
committee bill would provide, to a Department of Homeland Security 
employee who then would have to notify someone, that electronic signal 
would automatically be integrated to activate cameras in that 
particular area. And you would have this integrated technological 
system. That is one of the amendments I will be offering to 
automatically activate, in this particular example, a camera to focus 
itself on the direction of the triggered sensor rather than relying on 
a DHS employee wasting time trying to find the right spot and focus the 
camera.

  Another example would be to require the sensing equipment on an 
unmanned aerial vehicle be fully integrated with the systems used by 
DHS personnel on the ground so the images and the data are sent 
automatically to multiple ground stations. We have seen in the past 
where DHS has unsuccessfully exercised its discretion to implement and 
integrate an automated program as evidenced by the report from GAO and 
also the inspector general's report. That is why this amendment is 
going to be necessary to enhance what the Judiciary Committee has 
already done.
  Later on I will offer amendment 3221. This amendment is going to 
address the problem we have now, which is absolutely inexplicable and 
inexcusable at what our border people are forced to do. They arrest 
someone who has illegally come into this country. They arrest them and 
then release them. Not back in their country of origin; they release 
them in America. And then guess who doesn't show up when their 
immigration hearing is called. It defies common sense. This catch-and-
release program we have now is not effective or efficient. It is 
bewildering. In some areas of the border, up to 90 percent of the 
captured aliens are released after being caught by DHS. Of course, of 
those 90 percent who are released, only 10 percent appear for their 
subsequent immigration court hearings. That is simply not acceptable.
  How are we going to remedy this? The Judiciary Committee bill started 
the process. What they are offering is to build some new facilities or 
detention facilities. The committee does not build enough. What I am 
suggesting is we build facilities with an additional 20,000 detention 
beds over and above what the committee is recommending so we can begin 
to get control, get our arms around this immigration system. If it is 
not possible for DHS to secure

[[Page S2766]]

further detention space quickly enough, this amendment, which I will 
offer, will require DHS to examine other secure alternatives to 
detention.
  This amendment will also ensure that there are no questions on 
whether detention facilities are safe, if they are clean, if they are 
secure, and if they are consistent with DHS policies and consistent 
with America's tradition of providing secure, safe, clean facilities to 
people fleeing persecution from other countries.
  I will offer two commonsense amendments that my colleagues will 
accept. Clearly, it is intended as an enhancement to improve the 
committee bill. Hopefully then we can come out with a good work product 
and address this immigration chaos we have in this country at this 
moment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, in this debate on immigration reform, 
there are three basic goals I have in mind. No. 1, and foremost, I want 
us to seal our borders. I wish to see us identify the illegal aliens we 
have in this country. We don't know for sure how many are in this 
country. We hear a lot of numbers thrown out. Originally it was 8 to 10 
million and now it seems the common number being thrown around is 11 
million. But when you get right down to it, nobody knows how many 
illegal immigrants we have in this country. We need to identify those 
individuals to help reach some reasonable conclusions.
  The third goal is to do it in a manner that does not disrupt our 
economy.
  And, finally, I don't believe we should have amnesty.
  I have a couple of amendments I am going to be presenting to the 
Senate. The first amendment is an attempt to put together a plan. We 
direct the agencies to come together with a plan on how they are going 
to manage immigration, both from a diplomatic point of view as well as 
from a border immigration point of view. That particular amendment I 
hope will be accepted as a managers' amendment. I don't expect it to be 
controversial.
  The other amendment I will talk about this morning I hope to call up 
later today for a vote. That is amendment numbered 3216. I will not 
call it up this morning, but I will debate it in the Senate and 
describe the amendment as to what it does.
  I rise today to share with my colleagues six words I believe will be 
as surprising to others as to me. Those words are ``advocacy of 
terrorism not always exclusionary.''
  Am I reading these from a terrorist handbook? No. Am I reading them 
from the United States law passed by the Congress and signed by the 
President? Most certainly not. Am I reading it from a how-to book on 
exploiting loopholes in the United States visa system? I may as well 
be.
  Colleagues, believe it or not, I am reading from our very own 
Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. The same Foreign Affairs 
Manual issued to the Department's 25,000 employees located in more than 
250 posts worldwide. Even more alarming, this is from the chapter that 
instructs our consular officers to whom visas should be issued.
  Visas are, of course, the ticket foreigners, including terrorists, 
need to enter the United States. This instruction says to the consular 
officer deciding whether to issue a visa that they need not deny a visa 
to an individual who advocates terrorism. I, for one, cannot imagine a 
more pertinent ground for denial. If advocacy of terrorism is not 
grounds for exclusion, then I don't know what is.
  Not only am I concerned about the message this sends to our dedicated 
consular officers, I am just as concerned about the message this sends 
to terrorists. It says to them, feel free to lay the groundwork for an 
attack at home, apply for a visa, and come to America to finish the 
job. This is not the message the United States should be conveying to 
terrorists. This Congress has already passed important legislation 
denying visas to terrorists, including in the PATRIOT and REAL ID Acts. 
The REAL ID Act, signed into law on May 11, 2005, specifically states 
one who endorses or espouses terrorist activity is inadmissible. The 
REAL ID Act became public law on May 11 of last year, 8 days after 
publication of this manual. Yet today, more than 10 months later, the 
State Department is still instructing its consular offices that 
advocacy of terrorism may not be a ground for exclusion.

  Certainly, the State Department needs to send a message that we in 
Congress are serious about securing our borders and particularly 
serious about preventing known advocates of terrorism, people who are 
most likely to wish harm to our country, from entering into the United 
States. Admittance to the United States is a privilege; it is not a 
right. My amendment says if you advocate terrorism, you lose the 
privilege of coming to the United States, recognizing, of course, that 
special circumstances under which someone who meets these criteria may 
nonetheless need to be admitted. My amendment does nothing to change 
the authority of the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security in 
consultation with the Attorney General to waive an individual's 
inadmissibility when they deem it in the interest of the United States.
  I will urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment 
that slams the door shut on the face of advocates of terrorism who seek 
to cross the borders into our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, from the district I had the honor of 
representing over 13 years in the House of Representatives, one can see 
the Statue of Liberty. Ellis Island is a place that has been the 
gateway to opportunity for millions of new Americans. For me, it is a 
shining example of the power of the American dream, a place that 
launched millions down their own road to success.
  Like millions of Americans, my own parents came to this country 
fleeing tyranny in Cuba and searching for freedom. Because of this 
debate we continue today, this has a special and personal interest to 
me.
  America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation 
of laws. Unfortunately, our current immigration law and systems are 
broken and have failed us. We need tough, smart, and comprehensive 
immigration reform that reflects current economic and social realities, 
that respects the core values of family unity and fundamental fairness, 
and that upholds our tradition as a nation of immigrants.
  We need to aggressively curtail crossings at the border. We need 
tough border security and enforcement measures that prevent 
undocumented immigration so our immigration system is safe, legal, 
orderly, and fair to all.
  Our goal should be neither open borders nor closed borders but smart 
borders. In a post-September 11 world, our efforts must be tough and 
swift to ensure the borders of the United States are controlled. 
Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. We have all heard about 
and seen what is happening along our borders. Crimes are up in our 
border communities and overpowering local law enforcement's ability to 
address these challenges.
  So-called ``coyotes'' or human smugglers charge thousands to bring 
people into this country illegally. Because of this, organized criminal 
organizations have entered the business of trafficking humans into the 
United States. In fact, there are reports there is more money in 
smuggling undocumented aliens into our Nation than smuggling drugs. 
That is why the first step of any immigration reform proposal must be 
to secure our lax and broken immigration system.
  Our porous and dangerous border and uneven enforcement of our 
Nation's current laws are significant security risks. Immigration 
reform is needed to protect America and restore the rule of law.
  It is unbelievable, however, under the nature of that reality that 
when we look at the Clinton administration in 1999, 417 businesses were 
cited for undocumented immigration violations. If we look at the Bush 
administration in 2004, only three employers were issued notices by the 
Bush administration. That is why I support stronger immigration 
enforcement, not only at our borders but at our workplaces as well.
  We must take full command of both human capital and technology to 
truly secure the borders. This can be done by stronger screening at our 
consulates and ports of entry, better use of technology, such as 
unmanned aerial vehicles along our borders, and ensuring that our 
border agencies have both the

[[Page S2767]]

necessary staff and the resources to do their jobs.
  Time and time again, we in Congress have passed many of these 
provisions into law. The question is not whether we will pass them 
again but whether we will actually provide the funding to make these 
security improvements a reality.
  Over a year and 3 months ago, President Bush signed into law the 
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
  I was one of the conferees on that bill. I would remind our 
colleagues that it contained over 40 sections and 100 pages of 
immigration-related provisions. These tough but smart, new measures 
included, among others, adding thousands of additional Border Patrol 
agents, Immigration and Customs investigators, detention beds, and 
criminalizing the smuggling of immigrants, just as the 9/11 Commission 
recommended.
  Now, I am sure the American people assume that their Government not 
only implemented but also fully funded these tough measures to secure 
our borders and ensure our Nation's safety. Unfortunately, the 
President and this Congress have chosen not to do so. In fact, as part 
of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process, Congress has only 
funded 1,500 of the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents called for this year 
by that law, less than half of the 800 immigration enforcement 
investigators, less than half of the 8,000 additional detention beds 
required. So much for being tough and for fully funding what has 
already been passed and called for.
  While the Senate must be tough and smart in the legislation it 
passes, I do not want it to be mean-spirited. I was still a Member of 
the House of Representatives last December when that body considered 
the Sensenbrenner bill, H.R. 4437. Beyond the heated rhetoric that 
existed during the debate on that legislation, the bill itself was 
shortsighted and even mean-spirited.
  Since it makes a felon out of anyone who is here in an undocumented 
status, it would require the most massive roundup and deportation of 
people in the history of the world. I believe that is both highly 
unlikely and impractical on many levels, including due to both the 
budgetary and economic impact on our Nation and its economy.
  That bill would also criminalize citizens of the United States. Under 
the guise of a much broader definition of smuggling, that bill could 
allow the Government to prosecute almost any American who has regular 
contact with undocumented immigrants.
  Under the Sensenbrenner bill, an American citizen who helps an 
undocumented alien under any of these circumstances would be found 
guilty:
  A rape crisis counselor who is assisting a woman who has been raped 
would be guilty of a crime for ``assisting''; the church group that 
provides food aid, shelter, or other assistance to members of its 
community would be guilty of a crime for ``assisting or encouraging''; 
an aid worker who finds an illegal entrant suffering from dehydration 
in the desert and drives that person to a hospital would be guilty of a 
crime for ``transporting''; a counselor who assists a victim of 
domestic violence and her children would be guilty of a crime for 
``assisting or encouraging''; Catholic Charities or other faith-based 
groups or lawyers who give advice on immigration procedures would be 
guilty of a crime.
  I don't believe any of those provisions are the Christian values we 
so often hear talked about on the Senate floor. Because of those very 
troubling provisions, I certainly could not vote for that legislation. 
In doing so, I hoped that the Senate would work not as Democrats or 
Republicans but as Americans to bring our policies in line with our 
Nation's ideals and values.
  History is replete with examples of the United States of America 
being a welcoming nation. But, unfortunately, the public dialog through 
the years has been less than welcoming. Over the decades, the influx of 
immigrants of various ethnicities has caused concerns and in many cases 
heated comments against such immigrants to our Nation. In some cases, 
there were even laws enacted to limit or ban certain ethnicities from 
being able to come to the land of opportunity.
  Before the American revolution, Founding Father Benjamin Franklin 
wrote of the influx of German immigrants to Philadelphia. He said:

       Those who come hither are generally the most stupid of 
     their own nation.

  Henry Gardner, the Governor of Massachusetts, in the middle of the 
19th century, saw the Irish as a ``horde of foreign barbarians.''
  Finally, a 1925 report of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce stated 
that Mexicans are suitable for agricultural work ``due to their 
crouching and bending habits . . . , while the white is physically 
unable to adapt himself to them.''
  We should not stand for rhetoric that focuses solely on the weak and 
says nothing about those who benefit the most from immigrants' 
contributions--the corporations and, ultimately, all of us, the 
consumers of these goods and services. Let's face it, we are all a part 
of the equation that contributes to this unfortunate situation in which 
we currently find ourselves--the fortunate among us in our country who 
have nannies to care for our children, maids to clean our hotels, 
motels, and even our homes, landscapers who maintain our lawns, and so 
many others who make a difference in our daily lives. Yet they seem to 
be invisible to us. Yet they, too, those who employ them, are part of 
the problem as well.
  It does not end with the rhetoric. There has been a concerted effort 
over the past few years, through piecemeal proposals, to make our civil 
servants do things they do not even have the proper training to do. 
These efforts have included anything from trying to make our caregivers 
and doctors into police officers and our school teachers into INS and 
border security agents.
  Changes to our immigration system cannot be done in a patchwork 
approach. They need to be undertaken in a comprehensive manner that can 
provide us with a safe and orderly immigration system that preserves 
family values, rewards hard work and sacrifice, and is in the national 
interest and benefits all Americans.
  Now, let me be clear. I am first and foremost for hiring any American 
who is willing to do any job that is available in this country, any 
American who wants to do the backbreaking work that is so needed in our 
agricultural sector, to clean the bathrooms in our hotels on their 
hands and knees, and to do the work in our meat-packing plants across 
our Nation. These are done largely by immigrants. They should be 
available to any American who wants to do it first.
  But many of us know all too well this is not the case. Like my 
parents--and I am sure many others here--immigrants have not come to 
this country to be taken care of. They have come to work hard--very 
hard--to provide for their families, and all they want is a better life 
for their children.
  It is in the national interest to have all those here seeking the 
American dream to be able to fully participate and contribute to 
American society. Those who bend their back every day picking the 
fruits and vegetables that end up on our kitchen tables are part of 
America. Those who, through the sweat of their labor, dig the ditches 
that lay the infrastructure for the future are part of America. Those 
who are on their knees cleaning the hotel and motel rooms for our 
travelers are part of America. Those who plucked the chicken or deboned 
the meat we had for dinner last night are part of America. And those 
whose steady hands and warm hearts help the aged, the sick, and 
disabled meet their daily needs are part of America.
  These men and women who, through hard work and sacrifice, are seeking 
the American dream need to be brought out of the darkness and into the 
light of America's promise. It is in the national security interest of 
the United States to know who is here to seek the American dream versus 
who is here to destroy it.
  That is why I support the comprehensive immigration reform proposal 
that was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan 
manner. It is perfect? No. But it is tough, smart, and balanced, unlike 
either the Sensenbrenner bill or the bill offered by the majority 
leader.
  The Judiciary-reported bill will enforce our laws, protect our 
national and homeland security, while also reflecting current economic 
realities and respecting the core values of family

[[Page S2768]]

unity and fundamental fairness. It secures our borders through the 
increased use of aerial vehicles and sensors, while increasing the 
number of Border Patrol agents and immigration enforcement 
investigators. The Judiciary Committee bill has very strong border 
security and enforcement provisions that go even beyond the bill 
offered by the majority leader. For example, it makes tunneling under 
our borders a Federal crime, adds new criminal penalties for evading 
immigration officers, makes manslaughter an aggravated felony, and adds 
12,000 new Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years. This bill 
provides a way for future workers to safely migrate to the United 
States in a legal process, works with labor and worker protections, and 
addresses the family backlog so that families can be reunited.
  The Judiciary Committee legislation would also allow the possibility 
for temporary guest worker permits. Those who try to portray the bill 
as amnesty are, I believe, moving us in a direction to seek to, in 
essence, express the sense of fear. In fact, the Judiciary Committee 
legislation would punish those who are here in an undocumented status 
by requiring them to meet all of the following requirements before they 
can even join the path toward earned legalization. They would have to 
pay a couple thousand dollars in fines and fees. They would have to 
pass a criminal background check. They would have to go to the back of 
the line behind all applicants waiting for green cards. They would have 
to pay any and all back taxes. They would have to remain continuously 
employed going forward. They would have to pass a medical exam, and, 
yes, they would have to learn English and learn U.S. history and 
government.
  So as Senator Graham stated, this is an 11-year path--an 11-year 
path--to earned citizenship, not amnesty.
  There is a broad and diverse coalition supporting the comprehensive 
immigration reform in the Judiciary bill. This unusual coalition 
includes individuals and organizations from our business, civic, civil 
rights, faith, immigrant, and labor communities.
  So in closing, let me commend Senators Specter, Leahy, Kennedy, 
Graham, and all the Senators on the Judiciary Committee for the work 
they did in producing a bill that moves us much closer to once again 
controlling our borders, while upholding our tradition as a nation of 
immigrants and laws.
  However we got here, from wherever we came, we know that we are now 
in the same boat together as Americans. And together, hopefully, this 
Senate will act to make this journey a safe, orderly, and legal process 
that preserves and fulfills that American dream for all.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the crucial 
issue we are addressing as a nation and as a U.S. Senate, this 
immigration question.
  I continue to have grave concerns about many of the provisions that 
are now before us. I am going to talk about some of those general 
concerns, and then I am going to outline two specific amendments I will 
be offering on the floor of the Senate that help meet them.
  It is often said that Americans have a very poor sense of history; we 
do not read history much; we do not remember past mistakes and past 
lessons; we don't learn from history. I am afraid much of the debate 
and activity on this question on the floor of the Senate is another 
example of that because we went through very much the same sort of 
debate in 1986, the last time the Congress addressed illegal 
immigration in a major way and passed a more limited amnesty program.
  It is instructive to look back and read those debates. It is 
enormously instructive to understand the arguments pro and con, during 
that debate in this very Chamber. And if one does that, one gets an 
eerie sense of history repeating itself. Unfortunately, it is a history 
of mistakes and missed opportunities which only made the problem worse. 
I encourage all of my Senate colleagues to go back to those debates, to 
read those words and statements and the arguments pro or con to get a 
sense of that history.
  In terms of supporters' arguments for the legislation in 1986, many 
of exactly the same arguments were made. If we deal with this problem 
one time, if we create this program and deal with then 3 million 
illegal workers and immigrants in this country, we can solve it once 
and for all, and then we will have a true enforcement mechanism that 
will never let the problem recur or grow again--an interesting set of 
arguments, the same arguments we are hearing now.
  What has happened since 1986? On that, the history and the record 
should be crystal clear. We didn't solve the problem back then. We 
passed major legislation which included an amnesty program, and the 
problem grew by 400 or 500 percent, a problem that was maybe 3 million 
illegal workers in our country back then. Even after so many of them 
were granted amnesty and given legal status, what do we face now? We 
face 12 million, perhaps more, illegal immigrants in this country.
  What is the simple lesson of that bit of history? The simple lesson 
is that we never got real with border security. We never got real with 
enforcement. And perhaps the most important lesson--that anything akin 
to an amnesty program is going to encourage a lot more of that illegal 
activity which we are still not fully prepared to deal with on our 
borders.
  The simple but basic conclusion I reached from that important history 
is that we need to address border security and enforcement first. We 
need to get real and prove ourselves on that side of the equation first 
because we have never effectively addressed that in the past, including 
1986.
  My plea to all of my colleagues is that we address this major issue 
in a simple two-step approach. First, let's do what there is wide 
consensus on, let's pass important border security provisions. Let's 
pass important and vital enforcement provisions, including those which 
go directly at employers who break our law by hiring illegals. And 
let's prove to ourselves and our constituents that this can and will be 
done.
  Talk is cheap. And if it is cheap anywhere, perhaps it is cheapest, 
quite frankly, in the Congress. We talk a good game about this issue. 
We talk about enforcement in the context of this debate. But the simple 
fact is that we have never proven ourselves on the issues of 
enforcement and border security.
  Talk is cheap. When we talk about authorization language, we all know 
authorization language is one thing, but appropriating the money to 
have true border security and true enforcement is quite a different and 
more challenging step. So let's not just talk. Let's act and let's 
prove ourselves. Let's do that before we run headlong into other 
provisions that are being debated, such as provisions that would be 
tantamount to amnesty.
  I will offer two amendments--one a broad global amendment and one a 
much more focused amendment--that are both consistent with this general 
philosophy that talk is cheap and that we need to act and prove 
ourselves with regard to border security and enforcement before we run 
headlong into these other issues.
  My first amendment is No. 3264. It does several essential things with 
regard to the Specter substitute No. 3192 currently before the Senate. 
It would strike what is often called the temporary worker program in 
the Specter substitute. It would also strike the title VI amnesty 
program in the Specter substitute. It would direct different elements 
of our Government to study important issues that have come up in the 
debate so we have a fuller sense of the implications of what some would 
rush headlong into.
  Specifically, it would direct three studies to be done within 1 year 
of enactment of this bill. First, the Department of Labor would study 
the need for guest workers on a sector-by-sector basis and the impact 
of any proposed temporary worker program on wages and employment 
opportunities available to American workers. Clearly, in

[[Page S2769]]

this country there are needs in our economy that are not adequately 
being met by American citizen workers. But just as clearly, opening 
ourselves full throttle with a very broad amnesty program or a very 
broad temporary worker program that would grow automatically over time 
has the risk of bringing down wages and opportunities for American 
workers. We need a much more careful and precise examination by some 
entity such as the Department of Labor on a sector-by-sector basis as 
to what the consequences of this would likely be.
  Secondly, my amendment would propose a GAO study establishing minimum 
criteria for effectively implementing a temporary worker program and 
determining whether the Department of Homeland Security has the 
capability to enforce such a program. If GAO determines that Homeland 
Security does not effectively have that capability right now, then they 
should determine what additional manpower and resources would be 
required to ensure effective implementation.

  Again, some on this floor are proposing a mammoth change to our 
immigration policy--a new temporary worker program--without our having 
a precise idea of what manpower and other authorities Homeland Security 
needs to implement and enforce such a program. We need to know that on 
the front end. We need to have that in place on the front end before we 
rush headlong into any temporary worker program.
  The third study my amendment would mandate is a Department of 
Homeland Security study to determine whether border security and 
interior enforcement measures enacted as part of this act are being 
properly implemented and whether they are effective in securing U.S. 
borders and curbing illegal immigration. We often talk a good game in 
terms of border security. We often talk a good game in terms of 
enforcing the laws presently on the books in the interior of the 
country. But we need a much more precise sense of what it will really 
take to bring enforcement to all of those provisions--proper, full 
implementation. We need to hear from DHS in a lot more detail about 
what they will need--manpower, authority--to actually implement and 
make this work before we rush headlong into temporary worker, amnesty, 
and other provisions.
  I will offer a second amendment on the floor. That will be No. 3265. 
That is a much more focused micro-amendment. The first amendment I 
described is a broad amendment to meet the major objections I have with 
the Specter substitute. The second amendment is much more narrow. It 
specifically addresses the following issue: Right now, the Specter bill 
requires that illegal aliens prove they have been employed since 
January 7, 2004, in order to take the next steps toward citizenship.
  How does one prove that? Well, they can show IRS records. That is one 
possibility. They can show Social Security records--that is another--or 
other records maintained by Federal, State, or local governments. Their 
employer can attest that they have been working. That is yet another 
possibility, although one has to wonder how often that is going to 
happen since we are talking for the most part about illegal workers. 
Their labor union, daycare center, and other organizations can attest 
that they have been dealing with these people inside the country since 
at least January 7, 2004. But that is not the only thing they can 
produce.
  If all else fails, they can do the following: They can have a 
nonrelative sign an affidavit, an attestation, that they have been in 
this country since January 7, 2004. Anyone who is not blood-related to 
them may do so. Clearly, this is an open-ended invitation to fraud and 
abuse. Clearly, having such an affidavit as a possibility with no 
supporting documentation, with no testimony from any Federal Government 
agency or State government or local government agency is a wide-open 
invitation for abuse. So my second amendment will simply close this 
door to fraud and strike the sworn affidavit or attestation provision 
in the language currently on the floor.
  I urge all of our colleagues to look carefully at these two 
amendments. More broadly speaking, I urge my colleagues to think long 
and hard about the lessons of history with regard to this particular 
issue. We have history to study. Let's not ignore it. Let's not ignore 
those lessons and plunge headlong into repeating the mistakes of 
history, particularly those of Congress's action in 1986, because the 
only difference in so many of the provisions now before us from those 
in 1986 is that this would be on a far broader and grander scale, the 
problem having at least quadrupled since those mistakes of 1986.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Judiciary 
Committee's superb product, the immigration reform, border security 
bill. I also wish to speak on an amendment Senator Brownback and I 
intend to offer. I gather we are not offering amendments now, but this 
is an opportunity to speak on this amendment. This would address 
America's treatment of people who come here seeking asylum.
  I am pleased to be working with Senator Brownback. Over the years, my 
colleague from Kansas has done so much good work to protect the rights 
of refugees overseas and those who seek asylum on our shores for a host 
of reasons--that they might escape persecution for reasons of faith or 
politics. Senator Brownback is a partner I am truly proud to be working 
with on this matter.
  This amendment rises out of a report that was issued in February of 
last year by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. It 
is a Commission established by law, by act of Congress. One of its 
duties is to issue annual and often more frequent reports. This report 
last February raised very serious concerns, objections about 
insufficient protections for asylum seekers arriving in this country. 
The Commission reported an unacceptable risk that genuine asylum 
seekers were being turned away because their fears and the real dangers 
of being returned to their home countries were not fully considered. 
The Commission also found that while asylum seekers are having their 
applications considered, they are often detained for months in maximum-
security prisons without ever having had a chance before an immigration 
judge to request release on bond.
  The Commission described conditions of detention that are completely 
unacceptable for a just nation to impose on people who are trying to 
escape war, oppression, religious persecution, even torture.
  The amendment I am honored to be offering with Senator Brownback will 
implement the Commission's most important recommendations. It calls for 
sensible reforms that will safeguard the Nation's security, improve the 
efficiency of our immigration detention system, and ensure that people 
fleeing persecution are treated in accordance with this Nation's most 
basic values. Remember, our purpose was stated in the original American 
document, the Declaration of Independence, which said that the 
Government was being formed to secure the rights to life, liberty, and 
the pursuit of happiness which were the endowment of our Creator, not 
just to every American but to every child of God. this Nation has been, 
over the decades, a land of refuge where people seek freedom and 
sanctuary from the deprivations they endured in the countries they were 
in. It is our attempt in this amendment to revitalize and make more 
credible and honest and true the asylum process that our country has to 
implement those ideals.

  The amendment we are introducing would implement quality assurance 
procedures to ensure that Government employees carefully and accurately 
record the statements of people who say they have a fear of returning 
to their countries. Aliens not subject to mandatory detention would be 
entitled to a hearing--basic American due process--to determine whether 
they could be released. Providing bond hearings for low-risk aliens 
will also free up space for the cases that really ought to be 
incarcerated.
  The amendment also promotes secure alternatives to detention of the 
type that the Department of Homeland Security, I am pleased to say, has 
already begun to implement. These new programs and procedures would 
also make our use of detention space more effective and efficient at an 
average cost of $90 per person per day. But, of course,

[[Page S2770]]

that is the average. Often it is much higher. Detention beds have 
always been scarce.
  Provisions in the legislation before us--the Judiciary Committee 
proposal--would vastly increase the number of aliens being held in 
detention. The underlying bill, which I strongly support, is a tough 
bill. It is so tough that it will inevitably increase the number of 
people who are not in legal status who will be held in detention. Our 
immigration system will need to prioritize available space because it 
is limited for aliens who pose a risk of flight, a threat to public 
safety, or are otherwise subject by law to mandatory detention.
  For those who may remain detained, we are obliged as a just society 
to provide humane conditions at immigration facilities and jails used 
by the Department of Homeland Security.
  The amendment we are introducing includes modest requirements to 
ensure decent conditions, consistent with our best American values, 
especially for asylum seekers, families with children, and other 
vulnerable populations. It requires improvements in areas such as 
access to medical care and limitations on the use of solitary 
confinement. It creates a more effective system within the Department 
of Homeland Security for seeing and inspecting these facilities.
  The United States has been, is, and hopefully always will be a land 
of refuge for those seeking liberty. Many of our Nation's Founders, of 
course, fled here themselves to escape persecution for their political 
opinions, their religious beliefs, or even their ethnicity. Since that 
time, the United States has honored its history and its founding values 
by standing against persecution around the world, offering refuge to 
those who flee from oppression and welcoming them as contributors to 
American society.
  That brings me now briefly to the larger immigration debate before us 
this week. I want to start with a bit of history. It was in March of 
1790 that the first Congress of the United States began debating an 
immigration and naturalization act that would spell out how new 
arrivals could become citizens of our new Nation. The main requirement 
of the law finally approved was that an immigrant needed to live in the 
United States for 2 years and in the State in which he settled for 1 
year to attain legal status. The Senator from Pennsylvania at the time, 
Mr. William Maclay, thought immigration would be such a benefit to the 
new Nation that he wanted those residency requirements removed. Senator 
Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, who I believe occupied the seat in the 
Senate that I am honored to occupy now in the succession, wanted the 
residency requirement kept in. Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania lost the 
debate and, frustrated, wrote in his diary afterward:

       We Pennsylvanians act as if we believe that God made of one 
     blood all families of the earth. But the Eastern people----

  Parenthetically, he must have been referring to us nutmakers from 
Connecticut----

     seem to think that he made none but New England folks.

  I am sure Senator Ellsworth would have objected to that diary entry 
on behalf of himself and the people of Connecticut.
  Today, this Senator from Connecticut is proud to stand with one of 
the two Senators from Pennsylvania today, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Specter, and my fellow New Englander, ranking member 
of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, in supporting the balanced, 
strong, practical, progressive immigration reforms that they have 
reported out of the Judiciary Committee.
  I thank them and congratulate them on this balanced and bipartisan 
bill. I also give special tribute to Senators Kennedy and McCain for 
all of the work they did in introducing their initial legislation, 
which I was proud to be an original cosponsor of, much of which has now 
been embraced in the Judiciary Committee bill.
  The proposed legislation before us, the underlying bill, would 
enhance our national security, promote our economic well-being, and 
create a fair and just path to citizenship for those who come here to 
work hard, pay their taxes, respect the law, and learn the English 
language.
  We all agree we have to do more to secure our borders and control 
illegal immigration. What we are doing now simply doesn't work. This 
debate has to be about practical solutions, about fixing that problem. 
That means we will never fix our broken borders without fixing our 
broken immigration system, in my opinion.
  People talk about this as a choice between better border security and 
immigration reform. That is a false choice. Not only do we need both, 
unless we have both we will not achieve either better border security 
or the practical immigration reform we need.
  The bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee contains all of the 
essential security and enforcement provisions in the bill introduced by 
the majority leader. Both bills substantially increase Border Patrol 
and immigration enforcement personnel, detention beds, border fences, 
resources for border security systems and technologies. Both bills 
create new criminal penalties or make existing penalties more severe. 
Both bills establish new mandates and authorities for detaining and 
deporting aliens.
  However, the Judiciary Committee bill omits a couple of parts of the 
majority leader's bill which ought to be omitted--those that 
criminalize the so-called Good Samaritan behavior toward undocumented 
immigrants and those who would criminalize the undocumented immigrants 
that we have. To me, that is foolish; it will not work. In fact, it 
will push the undocumented immigrants further into the shadows because 
now their status is not only a violation of immigration law but it 
would be a crime. It would subject them to much greater exploitation by 
employers in this country and, in that sense, constitute increasingly 
difficult competition for Americans who want to work. But overall, this 
bill on border security contains all of the provisions, except those 
two, in the majority leader's proposal to toughen border security.

  I think history should have told us something--that as important as 
tough border security measures are, they are not going to solve the 
problem of illegal immigration because people want so desperately to 
come here. I have said before, and I will say it again: With very few 
exceptions, the 11 million undocumented immigrants that we have in the 
country today came to America for the same reasons my grandparents did. 
But my grandparents arrived at Ellis Island and they were let in. Why 
did the undocumented come then and today? For freedom, for opportunity, 
for a better life for their children--to be Americans. Think about it: 
freedom, opportunity, and a better life for our children, which are 
American values and the American dream.
  I think history has shown us that border security ought to be 
toughened, but it is not going to stop this flow. Let me cite this 
statistic for you to prove it. In recent times, from 1993 to 2004, the 
number of Border Patrol agents was tripled because of concerns about 
illegal immigration. Spending on border enforcement quadrupled. We have 
10,835 Border Patrol agents and almost $4 billion a year is spent--
quadrupled on border enforcement. What happened to the number of 
undocumented immigrants in that time? It has doubled, from 4.5 million 
to 9.3 million. The reason, obviously, is that as long as we fail to 
provide legal channels to these people who desperately want to come to 
this country, they are going to find some way to come here illegally. 
They are going to come here to work.
  You have all seen the Pew Charitable Trust studies that show that 95 
percent of the working-age men who are undocumented immigrants have 
full-time, year-round jobs. In fact, they make up 5 percent of the 
American workforce overall.
  So the reforms this bill adopts, creating a path to earn citizenship, 
not only is the right thing to do for our economy, but it is consistent 
with our values. It is also the most practical thing to do to deal with 
the problem of illegal immigration and border security and, as others 
have said, would free up resources at the border to stop the few coming 
over who come in for bad reasons. Particularly, I focus on potential 
terrorists and those who want to deal in controlled substances, drugs, 
in this country.
  I will wrap up now because I see my friend and colleague and 
supporter of

[[Page S2771]]

this legislation, the Senator from Colorado, on the floor. I support it 
strongly. I think we have an extraordinary opportunity in this Senate 
to do something right this week, and to do something practical to fix 
the immigration crisis in our country. The immigration system is not 
working now and this bill gives you an opportunity to make it work. I 
know there has been discussion of possible compromises. I think the 
Judiciary Committee bill itself is a compromise, and a good strong one. 
Although the particular compromises that have been floated in the last 
24 hours I don't accept, I am encouraged by them because they speak to 
momentum in favor of coming together across party lines, regional 
lines--every line you could imagine--as Americans, to do what is right 
and practical, and to assist our security and our economy.
  I close with a wonderful quote I found from Thomas Jefferson going 
back to the initial days of immigration when he said:

       Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy 
     in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should, your right to 
     join us in society.

  It is that spirit Jefferson articulated right at the beginning of the 
American experience that I think challenges us, informs, and elevates 
the proposal before us. We have a real opportunity to act on that ideal 
this week. I can't help but go back to what that wise Senator from 
Pennsylvania once said: God, in fact, made all the families of Earth of 
one blood.
  I yield the floor and thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, at the outset, I recognize my friend from 
Connecticut and agree with his comments and applaud his voice of 
moderation and centrist views. Those are the kinds of views that are 
bringing together the coalition that ultimately will allow us to 
succeed in passing comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate.
  I want to speak about two issues today. One is about the law and 
order aspects of this bill, and the second is to refer to the nature of 
this debate we are seeing around the country on immigration.
  The first point I want to make is that the Judiciary Committee bill 
which was produced with great work on the part of both Democrats and 
Republicans is, in fact, a law and order bill. For those people who 
have said it is not, they are wrong. This is a law and order bill 
because what it does is it takes the immigration issues we are facing 
in this country and addresses the strengthening of our borders. It also 
addresses the enforcement of our immigration laws within the interior 
of the United States. And finally, it applies penalties and 
registration to those who are here illegally in our country. So I 
believe the appropriate characterization we should be giving this 
legislation is that it is a law and order bill.
  I want to review some of the aspects of border security which are 
very important. All of us know that today we are involved in this 
debate because we have broken borders, both to the South and to the 
North. It is not just the border between the United States and Mexico 
we are addressing today, but it also is the border with Canada. It is a 
system of broken borders we have in this country today.
  What this legislation does is toughen border security in ways we have 
not done for the last 20 years. In this post- 9/11 world, it seems to 
me there can be no higher imperative for our Nation's calling than to 
make sure we are doing everything we can to protect the Nation and 
protect our homeland. How can we do that if we have porous borders? 
That is what this legislation, the Judiciary Committee bill, before the 
Senate does. It addresses that issue of border security.
  It adds 12,000 new Border Patrol agents. These officers will help 
double the number of law enforcement officials we have working on the 
borders to make sure we have secure borders.
  It creates additional border fences in places that are vulnerable, 
where we see significant crossings in some of the major cities between 
the North and the South, but we know with these additional fences in 
vulnerable areas that we can increase border security.
  It provides new criminal penalties for a whole range of activities, 
including the construction of tunnels which have been found in 
California and other places so that those who are involved in the 
construction of the tunnels will be subject to some very heavy criminal 
penalties.
  It adds new checkpoints and points of entry so we can make sure the 
flow of people from one country to another is, in fact, being checked 
and that we can, in fact, make sure they are legal entrants into our 
country.
  It expands the security system at all land borders as well as our 
airports.
  One of the law and order legs of this stool is the fact that we will 
have much more strengthened border security if we are able to get this 
immigration reform package through the Senate.
  The second aspect of this legislation, which I think stands tall for 
law and order, is the enforcement of our immigration laws. For far too 
long we have turned and looked the other way when our immigration laws 
have been broken.
  This immigration bill produced by the Judiciary Committee will have 
us look in the right direction. It will have us stand tall and say: We 
are going to enforce our immigration laws.
  It adds 5,000 new investigators within the interior of this country 
to make sure we are enforcing those immigration laws. That more than 
doubles the capacity of our interior enforcement with respect to 
immigration.
  It establishes 20 new detention facilities so we can process those 
who are caught here illegally for violation of our immigration laws.
  It reimburses the States that now have the responsibility, in many 
cases, of apprehending and detaining aliens. This legislation will 
provide assistance to the States for that detention.
  It requires a faster deportation process so that once there is 
someone who is caught illegally, they are subject to deportation in a 
prompt process.
  It creates additional criminal penalties for gang members, for money 
laundering, and for those who are involved in human trafficking. We go 
after that lawlessness which has been created by the broken borders we 
have today.
  It increases document fraud detention and, as the President said, for 
people who are here under the guest worker program, they will have a 
tamperproof card so we can make sure the fraudulent business that has 
been created is something we stop.
  It expands authority to remove suspected terrorists from the United 
States.
  And it is strong in pushing for the employer sanctions which are now 
part of the law and adds some additional employer sanctions.
  It is a tough immigration law enforcement bill that addresses the 
issues within our interior.
  The third point I want to make with respect to this bill, which is a 
law and order bill, has to do with the fact that we penalize those who 
have broken the law. Some people have decided they want to call this 
legislation amnesty legislation. There is nothing that could be further 
from the truth. It is a falsehood to say this legislation provides 
amnesty.
  For those who have broken the law, we require them to pay a penalty. 
It is a substantial monetary fine. We in America who have worked in law 
enforcement know that many Americans, when they break the law, have to 
pay some kind of civil penalty. Here the penalty that is proposed for 
those illegally here today is $1,000. In addition to paying the 
penalty, we require these people to register with the Government. As 
American citizens, none of us are required to register with the 
Government. We, in this bill, however, require the undocumented people 
who are in this country to register with the U.S. Government. So we 
have penalties and we have registration.
  There is a whole host of other items included in this part of the 
legislation that address the 11 million undocumented workers in this 
country, including the requirement that they obtain a temporary work 
visa, that they provide an additional $1,000 penalty, that they pass a 
background check and remain crime free while in the United States, that 
they pay all back taxes, that they learn English, that they learn 
American history and Government, that they pass a medical exam, and 
that they prove they are continuously employed with a temporary guest 
visa.

[[Page S2772]]

  When we look at all these requirements, what we are doing is creating 
a system where for an 11-year-period these people are going to be 
punished and they are going to go through what I call a purgatory of 
time. It is an 11-year waiting period before they are eligible to 
obtain citizenship.
  So this legislation ought to be correctly characterized as 
legislation that stands up for law and order, that addresses our broken 
borders and the lawlessness that comes from those broken borders.
  I wish to briefly also address the tenor of the debate in the United 
States of America with respect to this issue of immigration reform, 
which we are debating in Washington, DC, and across our great Nation.
  I think President Bush had it right when he talked about this issue a 
few days ago. He said:

       When we conduct this debate, it must be done in a civil 
     way. It must be done in a way that brings dignity to the 
     process. It must be done in a way that doesn't pit one group 
     of people against another. It must be done in a way that 
     recognizes our history.

  That is what President Bush said about the kind of debate we ought to 
be having in America today on immigration.
  Yet the reality is that the kind of debate that is going on in some 
places in America is a debate that is very vitriolic and is very 
poisonous. It serves to divide our country as opposed to uniting our 
country.
  I myself have been the subject of many of these attacks by telephone 
and e-mails as well, I am sure, as many of my colleagues who are 
working in the Senate today. Some of those attacks that have been 
launched against me have said I should simply go back to Mexico because 
I am a ``spic.'' I resent that because my family founded a great part 
of this country, including the city of Santa Fe, NM, some 400 years 
ago. My family has supported this country through war and depression 
and a whole host of different ways.
  Like all Americans, I believe we are equal and that we should be 
celebrating the diversity that makes us a strong country. So the kind 
of comments and the kind of poison that sometimes comes from these 
comments we are getting from around the country, including my own State 
of Colorado, is not helpful for us as we move forward to create 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  I have received other kinds of comments such as from someone calling 
from my State:

       I am not a racist against Mexicans. I want all minorities 
     kicked out.

  Another one:

       Put all the illegal aliens on trains and deport them out of 
     the country. They come in vans. Railcars would be a step up.

  Those are just a few samples of the thousands of negative messages I 
have received in my office as we have engaged in this debate.
  I go back to the President's statement that as we move forward in 
this debate on this Senate floor and in this country, we should appeal 
to the better angels of people to ensure we can have a civil debate 
about a very important issue, that goes to the heart of America's 
national security, that addresses the economic realities that are 
addressed in the package that came out of the Judiciary Committee, and 
that also addresses the humanity involved in the immigration chaos in 
which we find ourselves.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________