Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 42 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 42 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2850-S2863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2454, which the clerk will
report.
The 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.

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have worked on trying to break the
impasse, and staff for Senator Leahy and myself worked late last night
and have a number of amendments where both sides think we can argue
them, debate them, and vote on them. But we have still not resolved the
issue as to what to do with certain pending amendments. It was my hope
that the pending amendments would be included in the list, but that was
not to be the case. We have debated the Kyl-Cornyn amendment. It is my
thought that we ought to vote on that amendment. But that is objected
to by the Democrats. In order to proceed to consideration and votes on
other amendments, we have to set aside the Kyl-Cornyn amendment.
Senator Kyl is understandably concerned about setting aside his
amendment, that he will not have an opportunity to vote on it. So we
are still working to try to resolve the issue.
I have just had a short discussion with the distinguished Democratic
leader. We are prepared to move ahead, not as usefully as we might but
at least to use floor time on matters which we would have later. We
have agreed that Senator Santorum would be recognized to lay down an
amendment and speak about it and that Senator Nelson of Florida would
lay down an amendment and speak about it. In the interim, we are
continuing to talk to see if we can resolve our differences of opinion.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Santorum
would lay down his amendment, speak on it for whatever time he feels
appropriate. Following the termination of his remarks, the Senator from
Florida would be recognized, or someone on his behalf, to lay down
amendment No. 3220 and speak for whatever time he thought appropriate.
Mr. SPECTER. That is my understanding as well. So we have agreed upon
something.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent on that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 3214

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3214 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for himself
and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 3214.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To designate Poland as a program country under the visa
waiver program established under section 217 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. DESIGNATION OF POLAND AS A VISA WAIVER COUNTRY.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Since the founding of the United States, Poland has
proven its steadfast dedication to the causes of freedom and
friendship with the United States, exemplified by the brave
actions of Polish patriots such as Casimir Pulaski and
Tadeusz Kosciuszko during the American Revolution.
(2) Polish history provides pioneering examples of
constitutional democracy and religious tolerance.
(3) The United States is home to nearly 9,000,000 people of
Polish ancestry.
(4) Polish immigrants have contributed greatly to the
success of industry and agriculture in the United States.
(5) Since the demise of communism, Poland has become a
stable, democratic nation.
(6) Poland has adopted economic policies that promote free
markets and rapid economic growth.
(7) On March 12, 1999, Poland demonstrated its commitment
to global security by becoming a member of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization.
(8) On May 1, 2004, Poland became a member state of the
European Union.
(9) Poland was a staunch ally to the United States during
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(10) Poland has committed 2,300 soldiers to help with
ongoing peacekeeping efforts in Iraq.
(11) The Secretary of State and the Secretary administer
the visa waiver program, which allows citizens from 27
countries, including France and Germany, to visit the United
States as tourists without visas.
(12) On April 15, 1991, Poland unilaterally repealed the
visa requirement for United States citizens traveling to
Poland for 90 days or less.
(13) More than 100,000 Polish citizens visit the United
States each year.
(b) Visa Waiver Program.--Effective on the date of the
enactment of this Act, and notwithstanding section 217(c) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)),
Poland shall be deemed a designated program country for
purposes of the visa waiver program established under section
217 of such Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Pennsylvania
is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is an amendment offered along with
Senator Mikulski on the Polish visa waiver program. This is an issue I
have talked about on numerous occasions along with Senator Mikulski. We
have concern that one of our best allies--in fact, one of our
staunchest allies--has great concerns about the way they are being
treated in the United States with respect to the visa waiver program.
The visa waiver program is available to 27 countries around the
world. That allows citizens from those countries to travel in the
United States for vacation and visiting families, et cetera, without
requiring a visa. This is a program which is given to countries which
we have a special relationship with and which are able to meet certain
criteria laid out in the law and have been certified by the Department
of State as having met that criteria.
Poland, so far, has not been able to meet the criteria that has been
laid out in statute, although I will say that when Senator Mikulski and
I introduced this in the last session and

[[Page S2851]]

pushed for its adoption, I think we energized the administration and
State Department to get to work and try to find a way for us to meet
the Poles halfway with respect to getting them into the visa waiver
program.
I am very pleased to see that last year, they were again writing
letters, putting on pressure, threatening to bring this bill up for
purposes of passage. We brought it up in the 108th Congress and tried
to pass it. Unfortunately, there was an objection on the other side of
the aisle. We cleared it here, and I think there is broad support for
taking a country--and it is now 25 years since the strike at the Gdansk
Shipyard. There has been a tremendous change in this country which was
brought about by real freedom fighters, led at the time by Lech Walesa
and subsequent leaders to establish a stable democracy there--a
democracy that is thriving and one that had an election recently and
elected a new President. It is a President who I believe will continue
to have very strong ties to the United States.
I know the Polish people. I have a lot of Poles in my State, and they
tell me they travel over there, and the sentiment and feeling toward
America is very strong. There is support for us in the war on terror,
as strong as any country in the world. They have been a terrific ally
during this period of time.
Obviously, the contribution the Polish Americans have made to this
country, from Revolutionary War times all the way through today, is
quite striking and important. So we have a country that has made
fundamental changes toward democracy and toward a free market economy,
which is doing relatively well, a country that we have so much in
common with. Yet while almost all of the European Union countries
participate in the visa waiver program, unfortunately, Poland has not
been granted that waiver.
The President, last year, in response to the activity here in
Congress, was able to put together what is called the roadmap. The
roadmap was negotiated on February 9 of last year with then-President
Kwasniewski. He laid out some very real steps to try to help give
Poland another chance to show that they are prepared to meet the
requirements of the law.
Unfortunately, we still have a situation where we have very high
refusal rates. That is one of the criteria, but I am not too sure it is
a good criterion. It basically trusts a bureaucrat in an embassy in
Poland to determine whether someone should enter this country for the
purpose of travel. When they are refused, for whatever reason, that
adds to the refusal rate, and that rate is high. I don't know whether
the embassy there is tougher or what. Also, the refusal rate sometimes
is not reflective of the actual percentage of people who are trying to
come here and are refused. If 1 person wants to come and asks 10 times,
that is 10 refusals, not 1. To me, that also can skew the number of
refusals.
I am just suggesting that I think we have a special case here.
Congress has done this in the past with Ireland. Congress stepped
forward, and we pushed the executive branch at that time to allow
Ireland into the visa waiver program. I think it is time for us, given
the tremendous support we have gotten from the Polish people, the
tremendous relationship between our countries, the tremendous
contribution the Poles continue to make to this country--and I can tell
you, hearing from them on a regular basis as I do, since we have a
large Polish population in our State, that this is something vitally
important to Polish Americans--the ability of family members to come
for weddings, funerals, birthdays, et cetera, and not have to wait for
the bureaucracy at the American Embassy in Poland to approve these
types of activities.
This is an important sign to a good friend that we stand with them
and that we want to treat them as one of our best friends because,
indeed, they are one of our best friends in the world. Senator Mikulski
and I have drafted a piece of legislation that puts Poland into the
visa waiver program. I reached out to the Judiciary Committee, which is
responsible for this bill. I said: Look, if you have concerns and some
tweaks we can make that gets them into the program but puts reasonable
standards in place, we are happy to consider that. To date, on both
sides of the aisle, we have not had very much cooperation in making
what I consider to be some minor tweaks that would be necessary to pass
this legislation.
I have come today to offer this amendment. Hopefully, we can get this
accepted. If not, I would like to have a vote on this amendment. I
believe it is important for all of us to stand up before our friends in
Poland and affirm our support for them, as they have affirmed over the
past many years their support for the United States and the initiatives
we have taken around the world.
Mr. President, if you look at some of the countries that are in this
program, we have countries such as Brunei in the visa waiver program,
San Marino, and Liechtenstein. I suggest that if you are looking at
countries that are supportive of the United States, I am not too sure
you would name those above Poland. If you name a country whose culture,
whose people have close ties to the United States, I am not too sure
you would list those countries above Poland.
I hope we can consider this amendment and adopt this amendment,
approve this amendment, and send a very strong signal to our friends in
Poland that we stand in solidarity with them for their efforts to
democratize, to open markets, and to create the freedom that our
President and so many in the Chamber have advocated over the past
several years.
With that, I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the fight to
right a wrong in America's visa program. I believe it's time for
America to extend the visa waiver program to Poland. I am pleased to
have formed a bipartisan partnership with Senator Santorum to introduce
this amendment to get it done.
In September 2004, Senator Santorum and I met with a hero of the Cold
War, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk Shipyard,
he took Poland and the whole world with him. He told us that the visa
issue is a question of honor for Poland. That day, we introduced a bill
to once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity by
extending the visa waiver program to Poland.
Last month, I had the honor of meeting with Poland's new President,
Lech Kaczynski, joined by my colleagues Senator Levin and Senator
Lugar. We reaffirmed and cemented the close ties between the Polish and
American peoples. And we heard loud and clear that the visa waiver
program remains a high priority for Poland.
My friends, Poland is not some Communist holdover or third-world
country begging for a handout. The Cold War is over. Poland is a free
and democratic nation. Poland is a NATO ally and a member of the
European Union. But America's visa policy still treats Poland as a
second-class citizen. That is just wrong.
Poland is a reliable ally, not just by treaty but in deeds. Warsaw
hosted an international Conference on Combating Terrorism less than 2
months after the September 11 attacks. Poland continues to modernize
its armed forces so they can operate with the Armed Forces of the U.S.
and other NATO allies, buying American F-16s and Shadow UAVs and
humvees.
More importantly, Polish troops have stood side by side with
America's Armed Forces. Polish ships participated in Desert Shield and
Desert Storm during the first gulf war. Poland sent troops to Bosnia as
part of UNPROFOR and IFOR. Poland sent troops as part of the
international coalition in Afghanistan.
Polish troops have been fighting alongside American troops from day 1
of the Iraq war. Seventeen Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq,
and more than 20 have been injured. They are in Iraq because they want
to be reliable allies--because they are ready to stand with us even
when the mission is risky and unpopular. Today, nearly 1,000 Polish
troops are still on the ground in Iraq, sharing the burden and the risk
and the casualties. Next year, Poland will send more than 1,000 troops
to Afghanistan to lead NATO's International Security Assistance Force.
So why is France among the 27 countries in the visa waiver program
but Poland is not?
This amendment will add Poland to the list of designated countries in
the visa waiver program. That will allow Polish citizens to travel to
the U.S. for tourism or business for up to 60 days

[[Page S2852]]

without needing to stand in line to get a visa. That means it will be
easier for Poles to visit family and friends or do business in America.
Shouldn't we make it easier for the Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos and Marie
Curies of today to visit our country?
We know that our borders will be no less secure because of these
Polish visitors to our country. But we know that our alliance will be
more secure because of this legislation.
I urge our colleagues to join us in support of this important
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Amendment No. 3220

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3220.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment
numbered 3220.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To use surveillance technology to protect the borders of the
United States)

After section 102, insert the following new section:

SEC. 103. SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAMS.

(a) Aerial Surveillance Program.--
(1) In general.--In conjunction with the border
surveillance plan developed under section 5201 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1701 note), the Secretary, not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
shall develop and implement a program to fully integrate and
utilize aerial surveillance technologies, including unmanned
aerial vehicles, to enhance the security of the international
border between the United States and Canada and the
international border between the United States and Mexico.
The goal of the program shall be to ensure continuous
monitoring of each mile of each such border.
(2) Assessment and consultation requirements.--In
developing the program under this subsection, the Secretary
shall--
(A) consider current and proposed aerial surveillance
technologies;
(B) assess the feasibility and advisability of utilizing
such technologies to address border threats, including an
assessment of the technologies considered best suited to
address respective threats;
(C) consult with the Secretary of Defense regarding any
technologies or equipment, which the Secretary may deploy
along an international border of the United States; and
(D) consult with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration regarding safety, airspace coordination and
regulation, and any other issues necessary for implementation
of the program.
(3) Additional requirements.--
(A) In general.--The program developed under this
subsection shall include the use of a variety of aerial
surveillance technologies in a variety of topographies and
areas, including populated and unpopulated areas located on
or near an international border of the United States, in
order to evaluate, for a range of circumstances--
(i) the significance of previous experiences with such
technologies in border security or critical infrastructure
protection;
(ii) the cost and effectiveness of various technologies for
border security, including varying levels of technical
complexity; and
(iii) liability, safety, and privacy concerns relating to
the utilization of such technologies for border security.
(4) Continued use of aerial surveillance technologies.--The
Secretary may continue the operation of aerial surveillance
technologies while assessing the effectiveness of the
utilization of such technologies.
(5) Report to congress.--Not later than 180 days after
implementing the program under this subsection, the Secretary
shall submit a report to Congress regarding the program
developed under this subsection. The Secretary shall include
in the report a description of the program together with such
recommendations as the Secretary finds appropriate for
enhancing the program.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection.
(b) Integrated and Automated Surveillance Program.--
(1) Requirement for program.--Subject to the availability
of appropriations, the Secretary shall establish a program to
procure additional unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, poles,
sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and other technologies
necessary to achieve operational control of the international
borders of the United States and to establish a security
perimeter known as a ``virtual fence'' along such
international borders to provide a barrier to illegal
immigration. Such program shall be known as the Integrated
and Automated Surveillance Program.
(2) Program components.--The Secretary shall ensure, to the
maximum extent feasible, the Integrated and Automated
Surveillance Program is carried out in a manner that--
(A) the technologies utilized in the Program are integrated
and function cohesively in an automated fashion, including
the integration of motion sensor alerts and cameras, whereby
a sensor alert automatically activates a corresponding camera
to pan and tilt in the direction of the triggered sensor;
(B) cameras utilized in the Program do not have to be
manually operated;
(C) such camera views and positions are not fixed;
(D) surveillance video taken by such cameras can be viewed
at multiple designated communications centers;
(E) a standard process is used to collect, catalog, and
report intrusion and response data collected under the
Program;
(F) future remote surveillance technology investments and
upgrades for the Program can be integrated with existing
systems;
(G) performance measures are developed and applied that can
evaluate whether the Program is providing desired results and
increasing response effectiveness in monitoring and detecting
illegal intrusions along the international borders of the
United States;
(H) plans are developed under the Program to streamline
site selection, site validation, and environmental assessment
processes to minimize delays of installing surveillance
technology infrastructure;
(I) standards are developed under the Program to expand the
shared use of existing private and governmental structures to
install remote surveillance technology infrastructure where
possible; and
(J) standards are developed under the Program to identify
and deploy the use of nonpermanent or mobile surveillance
platforms that will increase the Secretary's mobility and
ability to identify illegal border intrusions.
(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
initial implementation of the Integrated and Automated
Surveillance Program, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report regarding the Program. The Secretary shall include
in the report a description of the Program together with any
recommendation that the Secretary finds appropriate for
enhancing the program.
(4) Evaluation of contractors.--
(A) Requirement for standards.--The Secretary shall
develop appropriate standards to evaluate the performance of
any contractor providing goods or services to carry out the
Integrated and Automated Surveillance Program.
(B) Review by the inspector general.--The Inspector General
of the Department shall timely review each new contract
related to the Program that has a value of more than
$5,000,000, to determine whether such contract fully complies
with applicable cost requirements, performance objectives,
program milestones, and schedules. The Inspector General
shall report the findings of such review to the Secretary in
a timely manner. Not later than 30 days after the date the
Secretary receives a report of findings from the Inspector
General, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives a report of such findings and a description
of any the steps that the Secretary has taken or plans to
take in response to such findings.
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection.
Strike section 102(a).

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the sole intent of this
amendment is to take what the committee bill provides in enhancing
border security by utilizing technology and enhancing and integrating
and coordinating that technology, the use of electronic surveillance on
the border to augment our border patrol, and the use of unmanned aerial
vehicles, which are a much cheaper version than the military version,
but you can see at night and can also see during all weather--to take
that technology and integrate it and coordinate it is the intent of the
amendment.
The amendment was born out of an inspector general's report of the
Department of Homeland Security, as well as the GAO report on how we
can use additional coordination of our technology to enhance our border
security. It is as simple as that.
I am assuming that the chairman of the committee will accept this
amendment because it is just a commonsense amendment. We want to secure
our borders. There are so many people we can hire; therefore, we ought
to augment those Border Patrol personnel to secure the borders.
Here are a couple of examples. Right now, under electronic
surveillance, the signal will go off that somebody has penetrated the
barrier. That signal will go to a DHS employee, who then has to
activate a camera and search as to where that particular electronic
sensor has gone off. That is inefficient use of

[[Page S2853]]

personnel. We have the technology. We can integrate it so that when the
electronic sensor goes off--someone has crossed the border--the cameras
in that particular location can automatically go off and record the
event, that event can be sent out to multiple DHS substations, and it
can also be sent out into a permanent databank so that we have a
permanent record of that event. That is one example.
Another example is that you have an unmanned aerial vehicle, a drone,
that is flying overhead and--same thing--an event is spotted. It is a
crossing of the border illegally. Right now, that event is sent back to
personnel in DHS.
Both the GAO report and the inspector general's report say you ought
to integrate all that. It ought to likewise--that event--be sent back
to multiple DHS substations for their immediate response, and it ought
to go to a permanent databank where it is recorded so that we have this
vast amount of data. That is the sum and substance of the amendment.
I inquire of the Chair, is there a previous order that I was allowed
to offer just this one amendment, which is No. 3220? I have a second
amendment that is parallel, No. 3221. What did the previous order
require?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Florida is entitled to offer only one amendment.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I see. Well, then, at some point, I will then
likewise be offering a second amendment, which is quite similar. I
explained a bit about it yesterday.
I will simply take this opportunity, while I have the floor, to point
out what that amendment does, and the committee bill has moved in the
right direction. The committee bill is providing 20,000 detention beds
for people who are picked up for having been illegally in the country.
What happens now is that somebody comes across into America, they are
here illegally, and what do you know--we don't have the detention space
in which to process them. They are released. There is one part of the
border where up to 90 percent of the captured illegal aliens are
released after being caught by DHS. Guess what happens. They completely
disappear. Only 10 percent, approximately, appear for their subsequent
immigration court hearings. DHS says we don't have any space.
Presently, DHS has in the range of about 10,000 detention bed
facilities. So 90 percent of captured aliens are released. The
committee bill clearly is a step in the right direction. What they have
done is doubled that to 20,000 beds. What my amendment would do is say
let's be realistic: 20,000 beds is not going to cut it, and you are
going to continue on this practice of finding an illegal alien and DHS
is going to be required then to release them into American society, and
they are not going to turn up again. We simply have to stop this.

My amendment is going to provide an additional 20,000 beds a year for
5 years or, in other words, to get us to the point after 5 years that
instead of having 20,000 detention beds, we will have 100,000 detention
beds and be able to meet this problem and stop releasing illegal aliens
right back into society.
At the appropriate point, I will be offering amendment No. 3221.
Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order,
Senators have been allowed to offer amendments as we proceed--not on
the immigration bill but on an unrelated bill while the immigration
bill is pending.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10
minutes for the purpose of offering an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of the senior Senator from Louisiana's time, the Senator
from Vermont then be recognized to speak on the immigration bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

International Adoptions

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thought it had been cleared to present
an amendment and discuss it briefly and, at a later time, have a vote
on the amendment. I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be submitted for the
Record.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself and Senator DeMint. Senator Craig is also a cosponsor, and
several other Senators who have been working actually for several years
on this proposal. In fact, my great partner on this bill was the former
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles. Unfortunately, we couldn't get this
bill through by the time he left. So I know he will be pleased we are
continuing the good work he actually put into place.
This is an amendment that I think is going to get great support,
broad-based support from both the Republican side and the Democratic
side. While there are many issues in this bill that are extremely
controversial and very difficult and complicated to work out, which is
why it is taking us a good bit of time and our managers are struggling
with it as I speak, this particular piece I think is going to be
welcomed with open arms.
Actually, the subject of this amendment is for us to welcome children
into this country with open arms. These are children who are being
adopted in ever increasing numbers by American families. The number of
orphans around the world is growing exponentially for many reasons--
extreme poverty, war, violence, the growing AIDS epidemic--creating a
tremendous increase in orphans around the world.
We are working in many different ways to address that situation, such
as strengthening child welfare systems within countries of Africa,
within countries such as China and India, as well as strengthening our
own domestic child welfare system. Many things are underway in
partnership with our Governors and our local officials to do that right
here in America.
But the fact remains that despite our best efforts to strengthen
families, to improve child welfare systems and procedures in our
country and around the world, the number of orphans is growing. The
good news, however, is Americans are stepping up in unprecedented
numbers to adopt more children out of our foster care children who,
through no fault of their own, have been separated from their birth
families and some for very good reasons because they have been abused,
neglected, and have been, unfortunately, in some instances, hideously
tortured at the hands of people who are supposed to be caring for them.
We have increased the opportunities for adoption. This amendment I am
offering, called the ICARE Act, as an amendment to this bill proposes
to improve the international adoption process. We have increased
international adoptions from 7,000 children abroad in 1990 to over
23,000 children by 2004.
You may know, Mr. President, of families from Georgia who have
adopted children from other countries. In fact, Members of the Senate
have themselves gone through international adoptions with great success
and, of course, a great blessing to the receiving family and a great
blessing to these children whose options were extremely limited to the
countries from which they came.
This bill that has been thoroughly examined over the last several
years by the authorizing committees would afford foreign adopted
children the same automatic citizenship that is granted to a child born
to an American family overseas. If you are overseas and you have a
baby, that baby gets automatic citizenship. This would, at the act of
adoption in a foreign country, provide that same coverage to children
who are adopted.
Of course, those of us with adopted children try to explain to
everyone that once you have adopted children, it is impossible to
distinguish between children you have adopted and biological children.
You love them the same and they are an immediate part of the family.
Many of us have experienced that on our own.
The amendment would also eliminate much of the redtape and paperwork
associated with foreign adoptions, centralize the current staff and
resources working on international adoption into one office, the Office
of International Adoption in the State Department, and it would enable
our State Department

[[Page S2854]]

to provide greater diplomatic representation and proactive advocacy in
the area of international adoption.
The fact is, in conclusion, since 1965, when these original laws were
placed on the books, they have not kept up with either the pace or the
change of international adoption, and that is what this amendment seeks
to do.
So on behalf of Senator DeMint, myself, Senator Craig, who serves
with me as cochair of the adoption caucus, and others, I offer this
amendment for the Senate to consider. When we get to the time when we
can vote on some of these amendments, I hope to reserve some time to
speak again about the importance of this amendment and, hopefully, it
can be adopted by a voice vote. Hopefully we won't have to have a long
debate about this, but if we do, I am prepared to debate this amendment
for the thousands and thousands of families in America who, in their
mind, are doing literally God's work by going to countries and adopting
children who, without this intervention in their life, would literally,
in many instances, die.
For Americans, the least we can do is reduce the redtape, honor their
extraordinary commitment and their deep financial commitment, as well
as to bring a child here at great expense and to raise them, and it is
not cheap to do that in the United States. We want to honor that work
Americans are doing and say we are reducing their paperwork, making
things more automatic for them, all the while keeping our safeguards in
place for a transparent, cost-effective system of intercountry and
international adoption.
That is what my amendment does. Again, I offer it on behalf of myself
and Senator DeMint.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad the senior Senator from Louisiana
is on the floor. I commend her for her statement. She has been a Senate
leader on this very important humanitarian matter. We have discussed
the question of international adoptions many times. I know how
wonderful she has been in--I don't mean to embarrass her--not just her
position as a Senator, but in her personal life. She has been
wonderful. She has worked with Republicans, Democrats, and those who
have no political affiliation on this issue.
I have to think that because of her work there are many children
throughout this country who are going to have a life much better than
they would have had otherwise. I commend my colleague. I am glad to
serve with her and I know she wants to bring forward an amendment on
this subject. I believe it is No. 3225, which I should also note is a
bipartisan amendment.
I support this amendment, the ICARE Act. I hope we can agree to have
it formally offered and successfully considered. International adoption
cries out for this relief. I will work with my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle to see if we can get this adopted. I would be
surprised if there is any Senator--Republican or Democrat--who would
object to it. I certainly will give it my strong support.
Again, I commend the Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we were making some progress yesterday. We
had a number of amendments that were adopted--one by the distinguished
Republican leader and others. But then some tried to turn this into a
partisan fight, and I think that is unfortunate. I hope we are back on
track. We heard from a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle
who support the bipartisan comprehensive bill, some of whom came down
to speak for the first time in this debate. Senator Menendez spoke from
his unique perspective as one who was a Member of the House during
their debate on their bill. He was there when they debated their
immigration bill. It turned out to be a very narrow and punitive bill,
which he opposed. He is now a Member of the Senate and is supporting a
far better bill here today.
Senator Nelson of Florida described amendments in which he is
interested. Senator Lieberman spoke about an amendment which he and
Senator Brownback wish to offer relating to asylum. Senator Brownback
and Senator Lieberman have this totally bipartisan amendment to which,
for some reason, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are objecting. Senator Kerry spoke forcefully and eloquently.
I wish to speak for a moment about the comments made by the
distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar. I was struck by his
description of the slurs to which he has been subjected for his support
of the comprehensive bipartisan committee bill. I talked with Senator
Salazar, I think it was probably about 9:30 last night. He called me at
home and we talked about his experiences. I told him how proud I was of
him for standing up. Some of the things that were said were things such
as: ``Go back to where you came from.'' His family came to North
America in the 16th century, a lot earlier than either side of my
family. He is justly and rightly proud of his background, his ethnic
background, and the great contributions he and his family have made to
this country. I think about how horrible it is that he has to face
these kinds of slurs. We are trying to do what is right for all
Americans. This is not a situation where we have tried to craft a bill
for one group of Americans over others, and Senator Salazar has worked
to help us accomplish this.

So these slurs are wrong and it should be unacceptable to all of us.
Senator Salazar is an outstanding Senator who has made great
contributions. He served previously as the attorney general of his
State. He is thoughtful and genuine, and he approaches issues in a
serious manner. I am deeply offended that opponents of comprehensive
immigration legislation have subjected him to these slurs. Let us
debate the issues and stop the name-calling.
I think that those of us, many of us, who have been called anti-
Catholic or anti-Christian or anti-Hispanic or anti-southern or anti-
women or anti-American, have been subjected to these attacks because
those who disagree with us find it easier to smear than honestly debate
the issues. I find it most unfortunate that a Senator of the quality
and integrity of Ken Salazar would be subjected to this form of an
attack. This seems to have become a new and unfortunate way to debate.
It is almost like an ethnic or religious McCarthyism we are facing.
People don't want to debate the issue, so they slam somebody and
suggest base motives.
I remember in another debate when some Republicans disagreed with me,
they tagged me as being anti-Catholic and anti-Italian. I thought of
the slurs my Italian grandparents faced when they immigrated to this
country, and what my mother faced as a young girl because she spoke a
language different than others were used to. But I also think of the
pride my Italian relatives felt, here in the United States and in my
grandparents' home in Italy, when I became a Member of the Senate. I
don't feel I have to prove my bona fides for any of my heritage. My
father was proud of his Irish background and my mother was proud of her
Italian background. They were both proud of their heritage, but they
went through a difficult time at a different time in this country.
I think of the stories of when my father was a teenager and had to
support his mother and sister because my grandfather died as a
stonecutter in Vermont. At that time Vermont was a much different
State. It was not the wonderful, proud State it is today. My father
faced signs that said: ``No Irish need apply'' or ``no Catholic need
apply.'' In their time, my grandparents faced similar things. That has
changed.
I worry about those who are unwilling to debate issues of importance
to this country, people who won't debate the merits, but simply attack
people, as they have Senator Salazar or me with baseless religious or
ethnic claims. It is a form of McCarthyism; it is just intolerance of a
different nature. This Senate should be above that.
Those who have seen this happen, whether they are Democrats or
Republicans, should condemn it. They should stand up and condemn it, as
one of the greatest Vermont Senators ever to serve, Ralph Flanders, did
when he supported a resolution of censure of Joseph McCarthy for what
he was doing. They were members of the same party, and he condemned
what McCarthy did.
President Bush called for a civil debate and I wish his supporters
would follow that suggestion. I agree with the

[[Page S2855]]

President on this. We should have a civil debate. But I wish somebody,
even one Republican, would step up and condemn the unfounded attacks
and disassociate themselves from such poisonous conduct. We have a
major piece of legislation here that will affect all 295 million
Americans, and it will affect 11 million people who are here in an
undocumented status in our great country. Let's talk about that and how
we can best solve this difficult situation for the good of our country.
Let's not impugn the character or the motives of any Senator.
During yesterday's debate, we had a procedural discussion that became
unnecessarily heated. I have been here 32 years. Let's go back to
having a Senate that will debate issues and get away from the polemics
and the name-calling. During the course of the day yesterday, both the
Democratic leader and I suggested, along with members of the staff,
amendments on which we could have votes. Republican and Democratic
amendments alike. I think if we had votes on these amendments, or even
now if we had votes on these amendments, which are offered by
Republicans and Democrats, some by both, we would have the kind of
movement that, in my experience after 32 years, gets legislation
through.
We sent an initial list of amendments to the other side that we
believe could be scheduled for debate and votes. There is one by
Senator Brownback and Senator Lieberman that has been rejected. It
could pass with probably 80 votes in this body if it came to a vote. I
don't know why we can't vote on that.
Some on the other side tried to turn this into a partisan debate. The
Democratic leader, Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, and others have
taken a bipartisan approach. Senator Specter and I have worked very
closely, along with our staffs, under extraordinarily difficult
scheduling to get this bill on the floor. What we brought to the floor
is a bipartisan product, and everybody says, let's have a piece of
bipartisan legislation. The President of the United States has said
that. Most columnists have said that. We say that in our speeches.
Well, let's do it with our votes. Let's not do it just for the
rhetoric; let's do it in reality.

The Democratic leader has filed a petition for cloture that I hope
will be successful on comprehensive, realistic, and fair immigration
reform so we can take action this week. If we don't, let's stay through
the weekend and let's get this done. Let's get it done. Stop the
polemics.
Finally, as I have said before, don't let politics in this country
degenerate into an ethnic and religious McCarthyism, which is what this
debate has become. As a man of faith, I am proud to be a U.S. Senator,
but I will make my decisions based on what the facts are before me. I
am proud of my ethnic background. I am proud of the rich culture it has
brought to our family, as I am proud of my wife's background as a
first-generation American and the language skills and the background
she brought with her. I am proud of the diversity of my grandchildren.
But I make my decisions as a Senator based on one thing: the
extraordinarily solemn oath I have been privileged to take in this
Chamber six different times. I am mindful of the extraordinary
privilege it is to walk on this floor and to have a chance to vote. I
will vote my conscience. I will bring to bear my skills and my
background as a prosecutor and a lawyer, as a Vermonter, aided by as
fine a staff as anyone could have. I will bring that experience to
these votes. But I will not be cowed by the obscene and irrational
name-calling by the other side; nor, as I mentioned earlier, will
Senator Salazar, who is a man with an extraordinary background,
tremendous integrity, honor, and abilities.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have not yet been able to reach
agreement on voting on key amendments. We do have some peripheral
amendments we will be offering and voting on. We have no agreement on
laying down an amendment, but I believe there is no objection to having
Senator Kyl speak to an amendment he would like to lay down at a future
time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we certainly have no objection to anyone
speaking on this bill at any length they feel appropriate. But at this
stage, we are not going to agree to set aside the pending amendment for
laying down other amendments.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Democratic
leader if that applies to laying down an amendment?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. I don't see the logic, but if we can move ahead for
Senator Kyl to discuss an amendment that perhaps one day he will be
able to lay down and perhaps one day he will be able to vote upon it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

Amendment No. 3246

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, yesterday I sought to introduce amendment No.
3246. I will not offer that again right now since the minority has
indicated it would object to the offering of the amendment, but I will
at least explain what it is. It is a very straightforward amendment
that essentially addresses the future temporary worker program. I am
not talking now about what is going to happen to the group of people
who are here illegally today. We are talking about people who in the
future might want to come legally from their country to work
temporarily in the United States. For that group of people, there
obviously needs to be a system for verifying their eligibility and for
ensuring that program can work. It is estimated that it would take
about 18 months maximum to make sure that all of the things would be in
place for that program to work.
This amendment simply provides that things that the bill calls for to
be in place within that roughly 18-month period of time would actually
have to be in place before the temporary worker program commenced. In
other words, it answers the question that many people ask: If you grant
people a right to come to the United States and work here, how can we
be sure that you have done all of the other things you have said you
would do? In effect, this answers it by saying the temporary worker
program doesn't start until we can certify that those other things were
done.
All of us have talked about the need to ensure that we have enough
detention spaces for people who came here illegally and need to be
detained; that we have enough Border Patrol agents; that we have enough
appropriation for some of the other things the bill calls for--and we
are talking about the underlying bill. Given the fact that we all seem
to agree that those things need to be done, what this amendment does is
answer the question, How do we know they will be done? One way we know
they will be done is the temporary worker program doesn't kick in until
they are done.
We are not talking about in toto, we are only talking about 18
months' worth of the program. For example, we know that the number of
people within the Department of Homeland Security who will be required
to investigate compliance with immigration laws related to the hiring
of aliens needs to be increased by 2,000, and those people would need
to have been employed. We know the number of Border Patrol agents
within the Department would be increased by not less than 2,500 more
than on the date of enactment. That is approximately 1 year's worth of
increase in Border Patrol agents. In addition, detention spaces I
mentioned would have to be increased to a level of not less than 2,000
more than the number of beds available on the date of enactment. That
is about the number that would be created in 1 year's worth of activity
under the bill.
The point is, we say there are certain things we have promised would
be done. In order to make sure that promise is kept and to answer that
question of the American people who say: How do we know, since the law
hasn't been enforced in the past, that you are going to enforce the new
one, one way we can demonstrate that is to say that the temporary
worker program under the new law doesn't kick in until these certain
objectives have been satisfied.

[[Page S2856]]

They are not unreasonable. They are what is already called for in the
bill. If we mean what we say in the legislation, then this amendment
should not be a difficult amendment to adopt.
I reiterate that this applies to what some on the staff have called
future flow workers. It does not apply to the people who are here
illegally today. There is a separate temporary worker program for those
people. But for future flow, in order to make sure that program will
work, we have to have certain things in place. This bill would require
that some of the things that we have promised would occur within that
year's period of time would, in fact, have to be in place before this
new temporary worker program would kick in. As I say, when we get an
opportunity to offer that amendment--it is amendment No. 3240--I hope
it will be adopted.

Amendment No. 3206

Let me also speak to an amendment that is pending. It is the pending
business, but we haven't been able to get a vote on it. The number on
that amendment is No. 3206.
What this amendment implies is that people in certain categories
would not be able to participate in the program, and those categories
are primarily people who are criminals or people who are absconders. By
``criminals,'' we mean people who have been convicted of a felony or
three misdemeanors.
The current law provides that if you have been convicted of a crime
of moral turpitude or a drug-related crime or five multiple offenses
that amount to 5 years in prison, you cannot participate in the
program. That is fine, but it leaves out a lot of other crimes. I read
the list of crimes yesterday that would not be covered under the
existing bill.
What this amendment says is, if you have ever committed one of these
other crimes or if, instead, you have committed one of these other
crimes, then the program would not be available to you, either. Let me
note what a couple of those other crimes would be. Crimes which are not
covered under the current bill but which would be included in this
amendment include burglary, involuntary manslaughter, loan-sharking,
assault and battery, possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun,
riot, kidnapping, making a false statement to a U.S. agency----

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KYL. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator help me understand his amendment? As I
understand it, he has spent a great deal of time explaining crimes that
would be included which would disqualify a person from the possibility
of legalization, but he has not spent time discussing what I think is
the more troublesome aspect of his amendment, which would say that if a
person overstays a visa, he or she would be ineligible for
legalization.
If I could concede to the Senator from Arizona that, if he is going
to add the crimes he has mentioned--I happen to think they are
currently covered by the bill before us, but if there is need for some
clarification in that regard, I think we could work on it--but would
the Senator be kind enough to address that basic issue? Are you saying
if a person, currently on a student visa, is failing a class, drops the
class, no longer is a full-time student and is therefore out of
compliance with the student visa, that person by virtue of dropping
that class has now disqualified himself from legalization under the
bill that is before us?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from Illinois asked the
question. That was the second point I was going to get to. The first
had to do with crimes, but I will be happy to leave that conversation
and move to the absconders, as I said. ``Absconders'' is the word that
is used to describe those people who have been ordered by a judge to
leave the country because of something they have done--more than simply
overstaying a visa--and have refused to do that. In other words, they
have already demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with an order to
leave the country.
Obviously, part of the enforcement of all of this legislation depends
upon our ability to enforce the law for people who are unwilling to
comply with the law's terms. If someone has already demonstrated an
unwillingness do that, it seems to me they should not be eligible. And
let me go on to say that the suggestion that a simple visa overstayer
is caught up in this is not true--not true.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KYL. Why don't I explain it, and then the Senator from Illinois
won't have to keep asking questions about what it actually does.
There are four different sections. One of them has to do with the
removal of people where there has been a formal proceeding and the
alien has been detained. That is section 238. There are probably about
20,000--well, probably more than that, but there is at least a minimum
of 20,000 because many of those are other than Mexicans. We do not have
the number for people, for example, who would be Mexican citizens.
There are also formal proceedings before an immigration judge. This
number of absconders is far greater. That is section 240. There are a
lot more in that category, perhaps 200,000 to 300,000 people.
Mr. DURBIN. May I ask a question?
Mr. KYL. Let me finish the discussion so the Senator will not have to
interrupt and ask questions, please.
Third, there are the situations where you have visa waiver countries
where, because of the terms of the visa waiver, there has been a
prewaiver of a right to contest removal, so there is no formal
proceeding. There are about 900 removed under that provision per year.
So this is not just visa overstayers. There are millions of visa
overstayers, obviously. And finally the category of expedited removal,
which is section 235, where an alien is detained until deportation. We
don't have data on how many were deported but are still in the United
States.
These are categories of people where it is not simply violating it--
it is not coming into the United States illegally that triggers a visa
overstayer. In fact, I am not sure we wrote this broadly enough because
a visa overstayer such as Mohamed Atta--somebody from a country that
does not have a visa waiver, from a country such as Saudi Arabia--would
not be caught. So here is Mohamed Atta who overstays his visa, flies an
airplane into the World Trade Center, and he would not, even under the
amendment we have provided here, be precluded from participating in the
program.
What I am saying is I don't think we drafted this quite broadly
enough, but it makes the point that merely overstaying the visa does
not catch you up in this particular bill. So it is wrong to say all we
have to do is overstay a visa and this amendment would catch you up.
That is simply not the case. The number probably caught up in this
would be in the neighborhood of 300,000.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KYL. I would be happy to.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, here is what I understand the law to be
and what your amendment says. The law, as I understand it, is if you
are in the United States on a student visa from a foreign country, you
are required to be a full-time student and to stay. If you are failing
a course, you drop out of the course, you are no longer a full-time
student and, therefore, you are ineligible to stay on a student visa.
At that point, you are subject to a final order of removal which means
you can be deported from this country, having a presence in this
country that is not recognized by your student visa because you dropped
the course.
Now let me read what your amendment says. It says:

An alien is ineligible for conditional nonimmigrant work
authorization and status under this section if the alien is
subject to a final order of removal.

Mr. KYL. Keep reading.
Mr. DURBIN. ``Under sections 217, 235, 238, and 240.''
My question to you is this----
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me reclaim my time. The reason I said
``keep reading'' is because I just read to you under each of those
sections, 217, 235, 238, and 240, the specific circumstances under
which someone would be precluded from participating in the benefits of
the bill. It is not, with due respect, as the Senator from Illinois
said, overstaying a visa. You have to have been subject to one of these
four specific sections.
As I said, the first one is a visa waiver. There were 900 people last
year who were removed under that. It wouldn't

[[Page S2857]]

even include a person such as Mohamed Atta, as I said.
I need to go back and try to fix the amendment with regard to that.
Sections 235 and 238 are the expedited removal of aggravated felons and
I am sure the Senator doesn't want to allow those people to remain.
Section 240 is where there has been a formal appearance before an
immigration judge and a person has specifically been ordered to depart
and has not done so.
It is simply wrong to say if you come across the border and stay
here, or if you overstay your visa, you are caught up in my amendment.
My amendment is much more specific than that and specifically only
deals with those people you would not want the benefits to apply to.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might further ask a question without
asking the Senator to surrender the floor, of course, let me ask this
question: What you said and the last thing you mentioned was if you
were in the United States and had an order issued that you will leave,
depart, but the language of your amendment doesn't say that. The
language says you are subject to a final order, which means you could
be--you could be--subject to a final order. You are not saying a final
order has been issued for deportation, and, therefore, you are
ineligible. You are saying you are sure. If I have overstayed my visa,
sadly, I am subject to an order of deportation, even if it has not been
entered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me answer the question again by saying I
know my colleague is a good lawyer, but you have to read the whole
sentence. You can't read half of a sentence and drop off the last part
of the sentence. It specifically says under section 217, 235, 238, or
240. It is not simply subject to a final order of removal. It is
subject to a final order of removal under one of those four sections.
The last section the Senator referred to is section 240. That is
where there has already been a formal proceeding before an immigration
judge, an order of removal has been issued, and it has been violated.
Yes, the person is subject to a final order of removal because that
person has already violated the judge's order.
As to each of these sections, as I said, there is a specific reason
why it is included and why it isn't merely subject to a final order of
removal.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might further ask a question, if the
Senator from Arizona wants to make it clear that overstays on visas do
not disqualify you from the pathway to legalization unless a final
order has been entered saying you must be deported, I wish the Senator
would clarify that language. As it stands, you have said if you are
subject to--meaning you could be charged with--having overstayed your
visa, you could be deported then you are disqualified. I think if you
would clarify and tighten the language, it would overcome some of the
serious concerns we have. The example the Senator used in other cases
of terrorists and people we clearly don't want in the United States, I
don't think you will have much, if any, argument. But when it comes to
this particular circumstance, I think the language is subject to an
interpretation you may not want.
Mr. KYL. I appreciate the suggestion of the Senator from Illinois. It
is a usual legislative drafting tradition to say what you mean by
referring to other sections of law and only those sections of law that
you intend to cover. That is what we have done here. We have not
referred to sections of law that would refer broadly to anyone who has
overstayed a visa.
Let me reiterate. The Senator asked about the court proceeding. That
was the section 240 I referred to. That is specifically where there has
been a proceeding. The others I mentioned I will reiterate again.
The visa waiver: As the Senator knows, there are 27 countries where
we have a relationship with a visa waiver. What that means is the
individual, upon entering the United States, waives rights somebody
under section 240 would not have waived because they do not even have
to present a visa to the United States. They, in effect, agree as they
come in, as a condition to the use of that provision, to be removable
for violation of their visa.
As I said, last year, according to our information, a grand total of
900 people were removed under that particular provision.
This is not something on which we round people up and send them home.
The expedited removal, sections 235 and 238--as I said, 238 is the
removal of aggravated felons--and expedited removal under the provision
the Department of Homeland Security has now established for other than
Mexicans who come to the United States, for whom there is no detention
space and who are being removed from the United States, are subject to
this as well.
To talk about what this problem is and why we are trying to solve it,
you have 39,000 Chinese citizens in the United States illegally whom
the Chinese Government won't take back. There are similar numbers of
people from other countries, although I do not know of any quite that
large.
It is not a simple matter with people from countries such as this to
take them to the Mexican border and turn them over to Mexico which
obviously won't take them. They are not Mexican citizens. We don't have
the detention space right now to accommodate about 165,000 other-than-
Mexican illegal immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security has
announced their streamlined procedure of expedited removal where it
tries to get the country to take the individual back within a period of
less than 4 weeks. They are trying to get it down to a couple of weeks.
But as I said, many countries won't take them back. What happens is
you end up with people we don't have a place to put. There is no
detention space available. They are given an order to appear before the
court in 90 days. Basically, they are released on their own
recognizance and asked to come back in 90 days to the Department of
Homeland Security and show up for their removal. They do not do so.
There is no place to put them. They do not show up for removal, and
they meld into our society.
I doubt the Senator from Illinois is saying these--I believe it was
about 165,000 such people last year--are people we should put on a path
to citizenship.
Those are the four categories of people we are talking about:
aggravated felons, people who have already violated a court order,
expedited removal, and a small number of visa waiver people.
It does not apply to you simply if you overstayed your visa or if you
came into the country illegally and, therefore, violated our law that
says you are to present yourself at a port of entry. They violated that
law. But merely coming into the country illegally is not covered by
this amendment.
So the roughly 12 million people, or however many we are talking
about here, would not be covered by this; at most, perhaps, in the
neighborhood of 300,000.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question,
I understand the Senator's explanation, and I have to go back to a
point that I think if he would clarify his language in his amendment,
it would allay some of the fears we have.
Let me give an example of why we are concerned. In the original
Cornyn-Kyl bill that was introduced, it was a question about the
ineligibility of aliens, or deferred mandatory departure, or a similar
circumstance where they would not be recognized and given this
opportunity. Your language in that instance said it would be an alien
who would be ``ordered, excluded, deported, removed or to depart
voluntarily from the United States.''

There was specificity there. The decision had been made. I think that
is a lot clearer and more consistent with the explanation you have
given us than the words ``subject to a final order'' which I think is
much more general in scope and perhaps too broad, maybe leading to my
conclusion that may not be consistent with your intent.
I ask you if you would consider tightening your language here as you
did in the original bill with Senator Cornyn so we know exactly what we
are dealing with.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the suggestion. I would be happy
to visit with the Senator from Illinois who, as I said before, is a
good lawyer and who understands the details of this to make sure we are
denying the privileges of the underlying legislation only to those
people whom we intend to deny those privileges to. I think we

[[Page S2858]]

have a rough meeting of the mind as to who those people are.
I will say, however, it does get difficult because when the Senator
from Illinois says, for example, we don't just want visa overstayers to
be caught up in this, as a general proposition, I agree with that.
What that means is, of course, Mohamed Atta and many of his cohorts
would not have been denied the benefits of this legislation because
they simply overstayed a visa.
The point here is it is hard to draw these distinctions and deny the
privileges to people you don't want to get them and yet not sweep too
broad a broom and preclude people you have no intention of denying the
benefits to from participating in those benefits.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again for a
question?
Mr. KYL. I would be happy to yield again.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, please let us not wave the bloody shirt of
Mohamed Atta. He would be disqualified from this program under existing
law. Terrorists are not going to be given a legal pathway to
citizenship in America. No one wants that to happen, none of us. So I
don't think that was a good example of why we need the Kyl amendment.
Wouldn't you agree that in language already in the bill before the
Senate, Mohamed Atta wouldn't have a prayer if he said, I want to stick
around; I know I have been convicted as a terrorist, but I want to be
an American citizen?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, with all due respect, I think that question
was pretty far off the mark. Mohamed Atta committed his crime before he
could have been convicted of being a terrorist, and he obviously killed
himself in the process. The time to apply this legislation to him is
not after the fact but hopefully before the fact.
The problem is that at the time he overstayed his visa, to our
knowledge, he had not committed any other crime except perhaps forging
some documents or making false statements to an immigration official--
something such as that.
What I am saying is we have drafted this in a way that it would not
have caught people such as Mohamed Atta because to do that would be to
exclude others from the benefits of the legislation both the Senator
and I agree should not be excluded.
I am simply trying to say we have to be careful with the language
because if we simply say--and I know the Senator from Illinois would
agree with this proposition when he says we don't want to exclude just
people who have overstayed their visas, and he gave the example of the
student who overstayed a visa--I know he doesn't mean to include within
that somebody such as Mohamed Atta because the reality is that is
exactly what we have done here. If we could find some other way to add
a provision that says if we have evidence to believe somebody is a
terrorist, they would also be included, that probably would be a good
idea, and we would both agree to do that.
Mr. DURBIN. The bill explicitly says if you want to move toward
legalization, you have to submit yourself to a criminal background
check; no criminal record. Frankly, I can't imagine there would be a
terrorist who would say, I will wait patiently for 11 years, and I will
submit to a criminal background check so that in the 12th year I will
commit an act of terrorism.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it may well be that Mohammed Atta may not
want to take advantage of the provisions of the act. That is
speculation. Although these terrorists did take advantage of our
immigration laws in many respects, we did not expect them to do that.
We thought they would sneak into the country. Instead they filled out
the forms and came in, many of them, with legal visas. I am not sure we
can assume what he will do or what he will not do.
Here is the point: Under the bill as drafted, only crimes relating to
drug offenses, moral turpitude, and the conviction of five offenses
totaling 5 years in prison would exclude someone from the benefits.
That is why we have added the other elements which, by the way, I
inform my colleague from Illinois, the conviction of a felony and three
misdemeanors, are precisely the language from the 1986 bill.
Those who think the 1996 act was unworkable and amnesty and not a
good idea should be aware that all we are doing with respect to the
criminal violations is taking that same language and putting it into
this bill.
We have had a good discussion of this amendment. I am happy to see if
there is any way to further clarify the language that might get the
Senator from Illinois to support the amendment. I want to get a vote on
it.
As I said before, I want also to be able to lay down the previous
amendment which simply provides a trigger that before the temporary
worker program kicks in, certain things we promised to do under the
bill would have been done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there has been an agreement to take up a
number of noncontroversial amendments. We are still trying to get a
vote on the Kyl-Cornyn amendment, still trying to work out a procedure
so Members on both sides of the aisle may offer controversial
amendments, but we have not gotten there yet. However, there has been
agreement on four noncontroversial amendments. I give notice that we
will take them up as soon as the authors can come over.
Mr. KYL. Will the chairman of the Judiciary Committee tell us what
those four amendments are?
Mr. SPECTER. I would. And before we can do it, we have to have
consent to set aside pending amendments.
Mr. KYL. Because I advise you in advance I will object to setting
aside pending amendments for consideration of further amendments.
Mr. SPECTER. The ones agreed to are these, and we cannot proceed
until the pending amendment is set aside: Mikulski-Warner, 3217;
Collins, 3211; Dorgan-Burns, 3223; and Isakson, 3203. But we cannot
take them up, as noted, unless we have consent to set aside a pending
amendment.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I note that under the regular order, my
amendment is the first in line, having been offered on Thursday. These
are subsequent amendments. It seems to me our colleagues would be
willing to take up these amendments in the order they were offered.
What is curious to me is why some amendments are more worthy than
others to be voted on. Maybe it is that people don't want to vote on
certain amendments because they are troublesome. But if the object here
is to try to get this bill completed, then we have to agree on some
fundamentals, and that is that all the amendments that have been
offered ought to be voted on. It is logical they would be voted on in
the order they were laid down. There is no reason anyone can give me
why there shouldn't be a vote on the amendment I laid down and that
that should not precede the other amendments. I consider mine at least
as worthy as the other amendments, particularly because it goes
directly to a point in the underlying bill, and to my knowledge, the
other amendments, by and large, do not do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let us understand where we are at this
moment. In the colloquy with Senator Kyl, I raised an element of his
amendment which we, I think, generally agreed needs to be clarified. I
hope we can work toward clarification.
The Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, has asked whether we can now take up amendments which both
sides agree would be constructive, moving us toward our goal of final
passage, on a bipartisan basis, asking the Senator from Arizona, would
you please set your amendment aside, perhaps to work on the subject of
your colloquy a few moments ago, and then you will be back in the
queue.
We are not only prepared, incidentally, on the Democratic side to
entertain the four amendments which have been spelled out by the
Senator from Pennsylvania, we are also prepared to debate and vote on
at least three other amendments, the Lieberman-Brownback asylum, an
Allard amendment 3213, and a Nelson amendment 3220.
So the argument among some that we are stopping the amendment process
is not true. At this point, the Senator from Arizona is stopping the
amendment process because his amendment, which is not quite in the
shape it

[[Page S2859]]

might be in, or wants to be in, is going to be first or nothing else. I
hope that is not where we are going to end this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. With all due respect, I think that is a bit of spin to say I
am stopping the amendment process. On Thursday, Friday, Monday, and
Tuesday, I asked unanimous consent to proceed to amendments. Democrats
objected. The amendment following mine is the amendment of the Senator
from Georgia. That is not on the list, either.
What is happening is that the Democratic side wants to vote on
certain amendments--most of which do not go to the heart of the bill--
and does not want to vote on other amendments.

What we are saying is, we have a right to lay down amendments and
vote on those amendments. I am happy to vote on every single amendment
that has been laid down. But Members on the other side will not give me
an opportunity to lay down another amendment. I have asked for that
repeatedly. Unanimous consent has been denied. I asked the
distinguished minority leader this morning. He said no, there would not
be consent for me to even lay down the amendment I just got through
talking about.
So let's understand that the objections to moving forward are not on
this side. They are on the other side. I simply ask for the regular
order.
Mr. DURBIN. If there is no objection on the other side, I renew that
unanimous consent that we move immediately to consideration of
Mikulski-Warner, 3217; Collins, 3211; Dorgan, 3223; Isakson, 3203, with
2 minutes of debate evenly divided before each vote, and that we start
taking those up immediately. I ask unanimous consent to move forward.
Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, I offer an amendment to that
unanimous consent request which is that those amendments occur as
identified but to be preceded by a vote on amendments that are in the
regular order.
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, we are back where we
started. Senator Kyl will not let a single amendment be considered
unless he is first. We have a bipartisan agreement to move to four and
perhaps three other worthy amendments while he works on the language of
his, which is not acceptable. We have reached an impasse, and I object
to his modification of my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, without being repetitious, although
repetition is only a minor vice here since nothing of consequence is
likely to be said in any event. Moving this bill along, Senator Kyl has
accurately articulated the situation. We are being prevented from
voting on amendments which have priority in sequence, where we ought to
be voting, and it is just make-work to take up other amendments. It
would occupy some time and we would have fewer quorum calls, but it
does not move toward the heart of the issue. Senator Kyl ought to be
accorded the opportunity to vote on his amendment. The rules have
brought us to an absolute impasse again. So then we have another day
wasted.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I will take a minute. On Thursday of last
week, I offered in this Senate amendment 3215 which is pending after
the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, the Senator
from Texas. On Friday, when the majority of the Senate went home and
there were no votes, I stayed in this Senate for 3 hours and presided
in order for Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander to offer their
amendments. We had last week a spirit of cooperation in this Senate to
ensure that suggestions and amendments of the Members would be dealt
with as expeditiously as possible. The Senate stayed in session on
Friday to accommodate Democrats and Republicans alike with the
understanding we would proceed in regular order this week.
To blame the Senator from Arizona for being obstructionist is totally
incorrect. The fact is, there are other amendments following his that
would equally be objected to by the distinguished minority whip. So we
are frozen at this time because there is a lack of spirit of
cooperation in order to consider issues that are important to the
people of the United States of America on what I consider to be the
most important domestic issue in the United States of America.
So singular blame on any one individual such as Mr. Kyl is not only
inappropriate, it is not right.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I become very frustrated when it is evident
that nobody wants to do what is the will of the Senate. It is a
historic responsibility when you bring a piece of legislation to the
Senate, which is to allow Senators, Democrat and Republican, to work
their will with offering amendments that are, hopefully, germane and
responsible to be debated and voted on.
Why would I want any amendments? I have all I want in the bill. The
Judiciary Committee included agricultural jobs, a guest worker revised
program, and a program that will deal with illegal undocumented workers
already in country that relate to agriculture in the bill.
Would I want anymore amendments? In fact, the Senator from Georgia
has already offered an amendment against me. One of my colleagues on
this side of the aisle has openly said he wants to kill the AgJOBS
provision in this bill, and he has a multiple of amendments he wants to
offer. I am willing to let him offer them. I am willing to debate him.
I think I can defeat him. I hope I have the prevailing argument.
But what is at hand here is a very important piece of work done by
the Judiciary Committee, S. 2454. I am not going to suggest it is
perfect in every way. The amendment process does refine and direct the
will of the total Senate instead of the will of a single committee.
I suspect the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would be hard
pressed to say this bill is flawless, it is perfect, it is without
reproach. That is not what my phone calls are saying. That is not what
the public is saying. In fact, the public in many instances disagrees
with the provisions I have put in the bill.
What is important is exactly what the other Senator, Senator Isakson,
said. This is one of our major domestic issues. It is an issue of
national security. It is an issue of border control. It is an issue of
recognizing the diverse economies of our country and the need for an
employment base that is legal, documented, and controlled. It is a
matter of immigration.
To suggest we are going to play games with who is on first and who is
on second about who makes an amendment, who offers an amendment--why is
the other side so nervous and frightened that somehow this bill might
be changed a little bit? Better or worse, I don't know.
I think all who have spent time on this issue and know the issue are
certainly willing to debate it or we wouldn't be with the issue. We
would simply be running politically away from it as this Congress has
done for a good number of years.
But the American people, in frustration, in anger, in fear, are now
saying deal with it, control your border, our border, our Nation's
border. Define and prescribe, background check, inspect those who cross
it, at the same time, recognize that a certain type of employee is
critically necessary in American agriculture to do the tough, hard,
backbreaking work in the fields of America or to change the beds in our
resorts or to work in certain forms of manufacturing or in oil patch.

Now, that is at that level of work, and that is an entry-level job,
and it is critical to our economy that we have them. Americans, on the
large part, have chosen not to do that kind of work anymore. But I
recognize the need to recognize American citizens who do, and in my
AgJOBS reform of the H-2A program, we create a national labor pool and
recognize, first, if someone who is an American citizen is seeking that
kind of employment, we make sure they are eligible and eligible first.
It is Americans first in this instance, as it should be.
At the same time, there must be a clear recognition that there are
now millions in this country, yes, here illegally, but all of them
working, and working hard, and paying taxes, and not getting the
benefit of those. Why?

[[Page S2860]]

Naturally, they are not citizens. We understand that. They probably
ought to go home when they are through working, and 90 percent of them
want to go home. But the irony is, as we continue to control our
border, we create an impenetrable line, as we should, and those who
have moved back and forth across that border historically no longer can
do that.
Well, it is an interesting thing. It is an interesting issue. The
House tried to deal with it in one way--I do not think appropriately, I
do not think responsibly. I am not suggesting it is not responsible to
control the border. We are doing that in this bill. But I believe we
are doing it in a much more sensitive and humane way.
The border has to be secured or what we do here will not work. You
cannot try to control and identify and direct employment traffic, if
you will, in this country if you cannot control the flow of the
traffic. That is part of what we are all about in trying to deal with
this issue.
There are those who would say: Round them up and throw them out--
round up 8 million, round up five times the size of the population of
the State of Idaho and somehow identify them and treat them as legally
as you have to under the law and get them out? We cannot do that, will
not do that. It is impractical to do that. That is what this bill has
struggled to accomplish.
But let's stop and suggest that if this is the issue we all believe
it is, why are we fearful of amendments? Why has the other side
sleepwalked us for the last 2 days? We ought to have voted on 3, 5, 8,
10 amendments by now. What are we fearful of?
I have my provision in the bill, but let Senator Chambliss amend it.
Let him try. Let us debate it. Let us see the differences between what
he believes and what I believe. We both agree on so many things as it
relates to the agricultural employment base, but we disagree on some
things. There is nothing wrong with that kind of healthy debate. I do
not fear it. I will not fear it.
And I must say to my colleague from Illinois, when you tried to make
the straw person the Senator from Arizona, there is an expression south
of the Mason-Dixon line that is simply said: That dog don't hunt. Find
a new straw person. This one does not work.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, and so the Senator from Idaho says we
ought to have considered three, five, eight amendments by now. Well, he
suggests we are sleepwalking. Perhaps he was sleepwalking when we
considered three amendments, the first by Senator Frist, the Republican
majority leader, the second by Senator Bingaman, the third by Senator
Alexander. And the fourth was a motion by the Senator from Pennsylvania
to table the Kyl amendment. It is not as if we have not been
considering amendments. If I am not mistaken, moments ago I suggested,
let's move to four right now, and maybe seven. So let's move forward on
these amendments.
So to suggest we are not moving through the amendment process is not
accurate. To suggest we are sleepwalking--if you were wide awake, you
would be aware of the fact that we voted on three amendments already on
this bill and others were just denied an opportunity to be called just
moments ago on the floor by the Senator from Arizona.
It appears now that those who oppose this bill or those who want to
slow it down are intent on making the Kyl amendment the way to do it. I
would say that Senator Kyl and I had a colloquy just a few moments ago
on the floor, and it was very clear to me that his language in the
amendment needs to be changed so that it is clear to everyone what he
intends to achieve.
I thought that is where he was going. I thought that is what he
acknowledged. But having even acknowledged that, he will not allow
another amendment to come forward while his is still pending on the
floor. That is unfortunate.
It was said earlier that----
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. CRAIG. You are really going to suggest that the last 2 days of
effort are called heavy lifting? Shouldn't we redefine what work in
this body is all about?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say in response, I do not believe I used that
term.
Mr. CRAIG. You did not use that term; I just did. But you have
suggested we have been at great industry here over the last 2 days?
Mr. DURBIN. No. I can tell you--reclaiming my time, I would say to
the Senator from Idaho, most of the work that has been going on has
been off the floor in the Republican caucus because the Republican
majority has to decide whether we are going to have a comprehensive
immigration bill. There are 55 votes on their side of the aisle, 45
votes on our side of the aisle.
We are standing firm in the belief that the bipartisan bill which
emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the support of the
Republican chairman, Senator Specter, is the good starting point for us
to really address comprehensive immigration reform, for the first time
in decades.
The heavy lifting has been off the floor while the party of the
Senator from Idaho has been trying to decide their place in history.
Will they be part of a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform or
stand in its path? They have to make that decision. We cannot make it
on the floor for them. The sooner they make it, the better.
Last night, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, filed a cloture
motion to make it clear there will be a moment of reckoning. Here on
the Senate floor, in very short order, the Republicans and Democrats
will face a basic choice: Do we stop, do we kill this bill, this
bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill or do we move forward? I hope
we move forward because I think this is a good bill.
When I listened to the Senator from Idaho talk about enforcement,
well, let me say, the enforcement provisions of the bill before us are
amazing. And I use that term advisedly. But they are amazing.
We increase the number of Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years
by 12,000--12,000. Currently, there are about 2,000. Think about that.
What a dramatic increase in making our borders safer.
We increase the number of interior agents going after those who
should not be in this country by 5,000 over the next 5 years.
Agents dedicated to combating alien smuggling, up 1,000 over the next
5 years.
We also require the Department of Homeland Security to construct at
least 200 miles of vehicle barriers at all-weather roads in areas known
as transit points for illegal crossings. This is in the bill before us.
We understand, as most would concede, that America's borders are out
of control. They are broken down. Part of any comprehensive immigration
package must have strong enforcement. The bipartisan bill before us
does exactly that.
It goes on to require primary fencing in areas where we think it is
necessary to stop illegal crossings. There are technology enhancements,
replacing existing fencing, constructing vehicle barriers in certain
Arizona population centers. The list goes on and on. Criminalization--
greater penalties for those crossing the border illegally.
All of these things indicate this is not just a bill dealing with
legalization, it is a bill dealing with enforcement. We took the
provisions which Senator Frist, the Republican leader, offered and we
duplicated them. So to argue the bill before us is weak on enforcement
does not stand up. It is strong on enforcement.
But let me be clear. Our lesson is this: Simply increasing
enforcement will not solve the immigration problems of America. We have
2,000 border agents now. We have increased them over the years. We have
done a lot over the last 4 or 5 years, and illegal immigration has
continued. You need to do more.
In addition to border enforcement, you have to do two things. You
have to deal with the employment. What is the magnet that draws people
across that border into the United States? It is the prospect of a job,
a job that will pay much more than they can make in their villages in
Mexico, in Central America, or in Poland or Ireland, for that matter.
What we do is say that the employers who illegally hire people and
exploit

[[Page S2861]]

them are going to be held accountable. There are tough penalties under
the law. So border enforcement is tough. Employer enforcement is tough,
as it should be.
But there is a third element. The third element gets to the heart of
the issue. What are we going to do about 11 or 12 million people
currently in the United States who are not documented? If you listen to
some of the cable show hosts, they say: Send them home. Deport 12
million people. That is totally unrealistic. Physically, it could not
be achieved. If it could be, it would be an expense far greater than
anyone could imagine for this country.

What we have to do is have realistic, tough, fair answers. Here is
what we have come up with. If you are here, having overstayed a visa,
or without documentation, in the United States, we will give you a
chance, a chance to become legal. But it is a long, hard road. It will
take you 11 years--11 years--of your life. You better be committed to
being part of America's future--11 years.
In the course of that 11 years, it is not going to be easy. If you
break the law, you are out. If you are not working, demonstrating
employment, caring for your family, you cannot qualify. If you do not
pass a criminal background check, you are out. If you do not pay a fine
of several thousand dollars, you are out. If you have not learned
English, you are out. If you have not paid your back taxes, you are
out. If you do not understand this government, its history, and what
our country is all about, you cannot qualify.
Do you call that amnesty? Does that sound like something that is
automatic, moving to the head of the line, a free ride? It is not. It
is a hard, tough process.
I come to the floor--and I have said it before; I want to repeat it,
as many have in their own personal circumstances--as the son of an
immigrant. My mother was brought to America at the age of 2 in 1911. My
grandmother brought her, her brother, and sister over on a boat from
Lithuania. They landed not at Ellis Island but in Baltimore. They
caught the train to St. Louis and went across Eades Bridge over to the
east side of the river in East St. Louis, IL, to meet up with my
grandfather, who was working in common immigrant labor--steel mills and
stockyards and things we did in that part of the world.
I do not know if my mother, who became a naturalized citizen in her
twenties, could have met the qualifications of this bill--all of them.
They are tough. They are demanding. I hope she could have, but she may
not have. Fortunately for me, she became a naturalized citizen. I am
very proud of that. She raised a family with my dad--three boys, and
one of them turned out to be the 47th Senator from the State of
Illinois.
That is an American story, a story repeated over and over and over
again. We want this bill to reflect American values. We want this bill
to basically say: We are going to fix a broken immigration system. We
are going to repair our borders with real enforcement. We are going to
make certain that the employers who are making this situation even
worse are going to be penalized. We are going to do that and give those
who are here a chance to become legalized.
The Presiding Officer up here from the State of South Carolina has
been very articulate about this issue. He has spoken out in many
places, and I admire the statements he has made. He has noted the fact
that there are many people currently serving in the U.S. Armed Forces
who are not citizens. That is a fact. You do not have to be a citizen
to serve as a soldier. And many of them are risking their lives today,
in uniform, for the United States of America. Over 50 have been killed
in Iraq. They are not legally citizens but serving their country they
love, willing to risk their lives for this country.
It has been raised by the Senator from South Carolina, and others:
What are we saying to them? What are we saying to those who have
served, those who have risked their lives and may come home having lost
a limb or suffering some serious injury? Are we saying to them that
their parents, their family, must still live in the shadows of America?
Or are we going to give them a chance? That is what this bill is all
about.
So we have a strong bipartisan bill, supported by the Senator from
Pennsylvania, supported by three other members of the majority party in
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It is true. We have been rather steadfast in our belief that this
process has to move forward. And we only have a few days to try to
capture the moment and to bring together the political forces to do
something historic.
Last Saturday, I went to a high school in Chicago. Cristo Rey is a
Jesuit high school in an area of Chicago that has a largely Mexican
population. It is an incredible school with dedicated teachers,
administrators who are trying to give kids a fighting chance. They know
what the statistics tell us. Fifty percent of Hispanic Americans drop
out of school. So they are fighting against the odds to keep these kids
in school. I stood there on a stage with about 20 students from that
high school and surrounding high schools, some who had graduated a few
years ago and some who were currently about to graduate. I listened to
their stories.
Oscar Ramirez was there. I had met him before. He said: Senator, the
last time you met me, I was pursuing my degree in biology from the
University of Illinois in Chicago. I got it. I got my bachelor of
science degree in biology. Right now, I have applied for a master's for
research in neurobiology. But once I get my master's degree--and I am
going to get it--I am still undocumented. In the eyes of the
Government, I am supposed to leave.
I ask my colleagues, is America a better place if Oscar leaves? Is
this country better that a person of that talent would leave us at this
point? He came here as a child. His parents brought him here. They
didn't ask for him to vote on where to live; they brought him. This is
the only land he has ever known. He defied the odds--not only graduated
from high school, but he has a bachelor's degree and is going for an
advanced degree. Wouldn't we be a better country with Oscar Ramirez as
a citizen doing neurobiological research on Parkinson's disease and
Alzheimer's? Wouldn't we be a better place?
Standing next to him was a young woman about to get her bachelor's
degree in the city of Chicago in computer science and math who said:
All I want to do is teach. I want to teach in high school. I hope that
some kids will be as excited about math as I am.
Can we give up on a person like that? Are we ready to say we don't
need them in America--thank you for dropping by, but you can go back to
wherever you came from? I don't think so. I think what they bring to
America is exactly what we need--values that we cherish, values that
distinguish us from many other countries. Why is this such a great
nation? Because it is a nation of immigrants and a nation of immigrant
spirit, the spirit of those who were willing to get up and take a risk
where others were not.
When my mother's family left the tiny village of Jurbarkas in
Lithuania, I am sure there were villagers around them shaking their
heads, saying: What are they thinking? They are leaving their home, the
little plot of land they are tending to grow vegetables. They are
leaving the church where they were baptized, their language, their
culture, to go to a place where they can't even speak the language.
That Kutkin family must be crazy.
It was a crazy family like my grandparents and many like them who
have made this great Nation. They brought here risk taking. They
brought here family values. They were going to stick together through
thick or thin, and they did it. Because of them, because of their
courage and the courage of millions like them, we are a different
nation. Where other nations are torn apart by divisions, our diversity
gives us strength.
That is what this bill tries to capitalize on. That is what this bill
tries to build on. It says: Let us take the strength of that immigrant
spirit and build a stronger America for tomorrow. Create obstacles in
the path, create requirements, give people a chance to earn their way
to citizenship. It is a hard, long path, but an important one.
The Senate bill we passed takes this comprehensive approach. It is
tough. It is fair. We improve border security, deploy new technology,
increase our manpower, crack down on employers that are hiring millions
of undocumented workers. We do need tougher

[[Page S2862]]

enforcement. We believe that. But in the Judiciary Committee bill, we
acknowledge something that Senator Frist, the Republican majority
leader of the Senate, and Chairman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin did
not acknowledge--a strategy that focuses only on enforcement is doomed
to fail. In the last decade, we tripled the Border Patrol agents in
America. We have spent eight times as many hours patrolling the border.
During that same time, the number of undocumented immigrants has
doubled. Enforcement alone is not enough. We need a realistic and
comprehensive approach.
As the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges, mass
deportation, which we might hear on some of the cable talk shows, isn't
going to work and will cost us billions of dollars if we try. Amnesty
is not an option, simply waving our hand and saying to everyone who is
here: You are now legal citizens, enjoy America. That isn't the right
thing to do, either.

What we try to do is find a reasonable middle ground. If we are
serious about reform, we need to offer the chance for immigrants who
work hard, play by the rules, pay their taxes, learn English, a chance
to become legal in America.
Incidentally, what Senator Kyl said earlier about those who should be
disqualified, I can't argue with him. When it comes to criminal
records, let's be honest, if you want to be a citizen and you want to
commit crimes here, we don't want you. Can I be any clearer? If you
want to commit a violent crime, if you want to endanger the life of
another person with a sawed-off shotgun or commit crime of moral
turpitude, you can leave right now. We don't need you, and we don't
want you. We make that clear in the bill. It is already there. If you
want to make it all the way to citizenship, you can't have a criminal
record, period.
You have to have been employed since January 2004. Aliens who enter
after that date or who have not worked continuously since then would
not qualify. You have to remain continuously employed going forward.
You have to pay about $2,000 in fines and fees, pass a security
background check, a medical exam, learn English, learn about our
history and government, and pay all back taxes. And then, if you meet
all of those requirements, you go to the back of the line so that
people who are trying to move forward in this convoluted, bureaucratic
legal process will still be in the front of the line before you.
It is clear that is not amnesty. That is a process, a long, arduous
process. It is an 11-year pathway to citizenship.
We have an important bill before us, a bipartisan bill. We have a
singular opportunity to make history this week in the Senate. If we
press forward with a bipartisan spirit, the same spirit that guided the
Senate Judiciary Committee, we can achieve this. Having achieved it, we
will be able to say that we tackled one of the biggest problems facing
America today and dealt with it in a responsible fashion.
I will not renew my unanimous consent request because I know the
Senator from Pennsylvania would object. There is no point wasting our
time in that regard. I thank him for his leadership. I know he is
trying to find some balance to build a bridge over the troubled waters
of the Senate. But at this moment in time, we are prepared to move on
the four amendments we have agreed to and three others. We would like
to do that, I say to the Senator from Georgia. The amendment which we
are prepared to accept may not be the one you want today, but perhaps
we could get to your amendment at a later time. I hope we can.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are at an impasse. The rules of the
Senate have been used to block meaningful consideration of the pending
legislation. What we have before us is the committee bill which was
voted out 12 to 6. I believe it is a good bill. It is a very good bill.
But under our rules, it is subject to being amended. The Senators who
wish to offer amendments are being stymied by the Democrats who are
imposing technical rules--led by Senator Reid, the minority leader.
That is the brutal fact of life.
We worked hard to try to find some amendments where we could go
forward and have votes. We came up with a list, but none were
meaningful. None would advance the core considerations of this
legislation.
The rules of the Senate are very complex. If an amendment is not
offered prior to cloture--and cloture is the expression to cut off
debate--the amendment may not be voted upon, cannot be offered after
cloture if it hadn't been offered before cloture. If anybody is
watching on C-SPAN 2, which I doubt--it is just too dull; perhaps not
by comparison with what else is available on cable or over the air--the
reason is that Senators do not want to make tough votes. Today, it is
the Democrats who don't want to make tough votes. But another----
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SPECTER. I will as soon as I finish.
Today, it is the Democrats who don't want to make tough votes, but
there have been days when it was the Republicans who didn't want to
make tough votes.
Senator Reid said that they were experts on being cut off from
offering amendments because they have tried to offer amendments and
couldn't. And he mentioned the minimum wage and stem cells, among other
items. But there is a significant difference on what is happening today
and yesterday during the pendency of this bill, and that is that the
amendments to be offered relate to the bill, are germane to the bill.
Senator Kyl wants to offer amendments that deal with the text of the
bill. When Senator Reid was talking about stem cells, he was talking
about hypothetically, or maybe he did try to offer a stem cell
amendment--I don't know--or tried to offer a minimum wage amendment,
but he tried to offer it on a bill which was not germane.
It makes sense to say we are not going to vote on stem cells on the
highway bill, illustratively. And although Senator Reid wants to vote
on stem cells, he hasn't pushed that issue as hard as I have. I have
been working on the stem cell issue since it burst upon the scene in
November of 1998. The subcommittee which I chair on Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education has had 16 hearings on it. I am the
coauthor of the Specter-Harkin bill which has passed the House as the
Castle bill. I really want to bring that up, but I can see not bringing
it up on an unrelated bill. We are working now on a schedule. The
majority leader has committed to finding a time to vote on stem cells
in the immediate future.
The point is that when the Democrats tried to offer amendments, they
were to bills where they were not germane. I think that is the
situation. I do not have all of the amendments in my hand, but be that
as it may, there is no doubt that the amendments which Senator Kyl and
others want to offer relate directly to this bill. Although I would
like to pass this committee bill, we are not going to get a fair shot
at it because we are not going to get cloture. After cloture is voted
down tomorrow, there is going to be a mass exodus for the airports and
the trains. People will be going on the Easter recess, and this very
important piece of legislation is going to die.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SPECTER. OK.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee if he recalls a few weeks ago on the reauthorization of the
PATRIOT Act when Senator Feingold of Wisconsin offered amendments which
were germane postcloture but was not given an opportunity to call those
amendments because the Republican majority leader, Senator Frist,
filled the tree? There was no question that they were germane
amendments. Senator Feingold rightfully took to the floor and held us
in session for days because the Republican majority would not allow
votes on germane amendments on the bill that came out of our committee.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the thought that comes to my mind is,
were they subject to being offered postcloture, had they been offered
precloture? Don't they have to be offered precloture? The
Parliamentarian is shaking her head in the negative. Repeat the
question, and I will try to answer that.
Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding that you can offer germane
amendments postcloture, but the question is

[[Page S2863]]

whether you can get into a queue where the amendment will be called. If
there is a pending germane amendment filed precloture, it may take
precedence in terms of being called, and you may not have an
opportunity. I think you have a right under our rules to offer germane
amendments postcloture. Whether you will have a chance to call those
for a vote depends on the process on the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, as we have seen in so many situations, and where I
have been willing to concede error on both sides of the aisle, I am not
going to seek to defend preventing votes on relevant, germane
amendments, whether they are offered by Senator Feingold or Senator
Kyl, or anybody else. That is just not the way the Senate ought to be
run. I am glad to note that the Senator from Illinois didn't hear my
answer. He was talking, which he has a right to do.
Mr. DURBIN. I apologize to the Senator, who is very patient. I will
listen to his remarks.
Mr. SPECTER. It is not worth repeating. It is my hope that sanity may
yet return to this Chamber. If it existed, it has certainly departed.
We have, in all seriousness, a bill before us that is enormously
important.
Senator Durbin spoke at some length a few moments ago, and I agree
with most of what he said. We have a tremendous problem in this country
with undocumented aliens. We need to get a handle on what is going on.
We need to not have a fugitive class in America that is being exploited
by employers. We need to control our borders. We have a serious problem
with terrorism. We have a serious question whether the people coming
into this country are taking American jobs or depressing American
wages. We are simply not dealing with it.
To have the Senate floor empty, and we are going to have a quorum
call most of the time unless people come over and talk about ideas,
which are fine but are not advancing the progress of this bill. I think
it is important that our constituents know we are at an impasse because
of technical reasons advanced by the Democrats. I do not say that in a
partisan sense. I have voted for many Democratic proposals and for many
of President Clinton's judges and across the line on many occasions
when I thought the ideas merited it, not as a matter of party loyalty.
The Democrats are stonewalling this bill and no one is even on the
floor to defend them, so I will not attack them anymore.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I want to pose a question to the
distinguished minority whip. Last Thursday, I offered amendment No.
3215, which is second in line after the Kyl amendment. I have listened
intently to the distinguished Senators from Illinois with regard to the
objections they have expressed to the Kyl amendment. I have not heard
them say what their objection is to amendment No. 3215.
I ask the Senator from Illinois this question: Amendment No. 3215 is
a simple amendment, which says that any provisions of this act which
grant legal status to someone who is here illegally do not take effect
until such time as the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to
the President and the Congress that our borders are reasonably secure.
Now, I would like to hear what objection someone would have to the
United States of America living up to its responsibility of securing
our borders?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Georgia, I think
it would be an interesting debate. We may reach that debate as to what
is reasonably secure. There are some, as I understand it, 300 million
people who cross our border with Mexico every year in legal status, for
commercial purposes and otherwise, and whether we are secure under the
Senator's amendment, I would have to listen to his arguments on who
makes the certification and what are the standards for that.
If we had a situation where the fate of millions of people hinged on
a subjective decision about reasonable security, I think that would
raise some questions about whether we are moving forward and whether
people would say: I can step out of the shadows now and I think at this
point I am prepared to tell you who I am, where I live, where I work,
and here are my records. If there is this uncertainty, at any given
time you could stop the process.
I say to the Senator from Georgia, it would be an interesting debate
and I am anxious to hear his side of the argument.
His is 1 of 100 amendments that have been filed. One of his other
amendments we are prepared to take up immediately. I don't think that
is the same one. We are prepared to take that up because we think it
would move the bill forward in a constructive, bipartisan way.
I would like to hear the Senator's argument before making a final
decision.
Mr. ISAKSON. Reclaiming my time, my response to the Senator would be
that I am not an attorney, but I spent 33 years in the real estate
business. I saw the term ``reasonable attorney's fees'' on more
documents than the law would allow. I never met an attorney who could
not describe what reasonable attorney's fees meant. I think we can find
a lot of people in the Senate who understand that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for a few moments.
The PRESIDING OFFICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________