[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 42 (Wednesday, April 5, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2863-S2896]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NEGRO LEAGUES BASEBALL MUSEUM
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk
about last night's passage of S. Con. Res. 60, a resolution that
designates the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, MO, as
America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. I can't think of a
more appropriate time of the year to have passed this landmark
legislation than this week--opening week of the 2006 baseball season.
The passage of this historic resolution will allow an already fantastic
museum to grow and become even better.
That would be reason enough to pass a resolution here were the museum
on any other subject. But on this subject, which is so significant to
the history of America, it made the resolution, I think, even more
important. I am grateful to the Senate for passing it last night.
Many of baseball's most noted stars of the past century got their
beginnings in the Negro Leagues. Greats such as Hank Aaron, Ernie
Banks, Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, Willie Mays, Satchel Paige, and of
course, Jackie Robinson eventually brought their fast-paced and highly
competitive brand of Negro Leagues baseball to the Major Leagues. In
fact, much of the fast-paced style of baseball today is owing to the
influence of the Negro League's brand of ball.
Unfortunately, before the color bar was broken, many skilled African-
American ballplayers were never allowed to share the same field as
their White counterparts. Instead, such players played from the 1920s
to the 1960s in over 30 communities located throughout the United
States on teams in one of six Negro Baseball Leagues, including teams
in Kansas City and St. Louis in my home State of Missouri.
The history of these leagues is an interesting one. In the late 1800s
and early 1900s, African Americans began to play baseball on military
teams, college teams, and company teams. The teams in those days were
integrated. Many African Americans eventually found their way onto
minor league teams with White players during this time. However, racism
and Jim Crow laws drove African-American players from their integrated
teams in the early 1900s, forcing them to form their own
``barnstorming'' teams which traveled around the country playing anyone
willing to challenge them.
In 1920, the Negro National League, which was the first of the Negro
Baseball Leagues, was formed under the guidance of Andrew ``Rube''
Foster--a former player, manager, and owner of the Chicago American
Giants--at a meeting held at the Paseo YMCA in Kansas City, MO. Soon
after the Negro National League was formed, rival leagues formed in
Eastern and Southern States and brought the thrills and the innovative
play of the Negro Leagues to major urban centers and
[[Page S2864]]
rural countrysides throughout the United States, Canada, and Latin
America.
For more than 40 years, the Negro Leagues maintained the highest
level of professional skill and became centerpieces for economic
development in their communities. The Negro Leagues constituted the
third largest African American owned and run business in the country in
those days. They brought jobs and economic activity to many of the
cities around the United States and played in front of crowds of ten,
twenty, thirty, forty, and even fifty thousand people. These crowds
were integrated. White and Black fans came to watch the Negro Leagues,
and they sat together.
In 1945, Branch Rickey of Major League Baseball's Brooklyn Dodgers
recruited Jackie Robinson from the Kansas City Monarchs, which made
Jackie the first African American in the modern era to play on a Major
League roster. That historic event led to the integration of the Major
Leagues and ironically prompted the decline of the Negro Leagues
because, of course, Major League teams began to recruit and sign the
best African-American ballplayers.
If you stop and think about it, the integration of baseball was the
first of the major events in the civil rights movement in this
country--well, not the first, because that movement, of course, had
begun early in the last century. But it was the first significant
widely known event. Baseball was even more than it is today America's
game. The effect of this on the national consciousness, the progress
that made toward equality and justice for all people, cannot be
underestimated. That event occurred because of the Negro Baseball
Leagues. Without those leagues, we would not have the pool of ability
and excellent baseball players from which Branch Rickey was able to
draw when he came to an agreement with Jackie Robinson. Ironically,
though, that event, which led to the integration of the Major Leagues,
prompted the decline of the Negro Leagues, because Major League teams
began to recruit and sign the best African-American players.
The last Negro Leagues teams folded in the late 1960s. Much of the
storied history of these leagues was packed away and forgotten until
1990 when the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum was founded in Kansas City,
MO, to honor the players, coaches and owners who competed in Negro
Leagues Baseball. This museum is the only public museum in the Nation
that exists for the exclusive purpose of interpreting the experiences
of the participants of the Negro Leagues from the 1920s through the
1960s.
It is not a hall of fame, Mr. President. We don't want it to be a
hall of fame. The Negro Leagues' baseball players belong in the Major
League Hall of Fame. They were segregated long enough. It is a museum
that exists in order to educate and enlighten people, and to allow them
to enjoy the experience of the Negro leagues in the United States.
Today the museum educates a diverse audience through its
comprehensive collection of historical materials, important artifacts,
and oral histories of the participants of the leagues. The museum uses
onsite visits, traveling exhibits, classroom curriculum, distance
learning, and other initiatives to teach the Nation about the honor,
the skill, the courage, the sacrifice, the humanity, and the triumph of
the Negro Leagues and their players.
This resolution designates the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in
Kansas City as America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. This
designation will assist the museum in its efforts to continue the
collection, preservation, and interpretation of the historical
memorabilia associated with the Negro Leagues. This effort is a must if
we hope to enhance our knowledge and understanding of the experience of
African Americans and the African-American ballplayer during the trials
and tribulations of legal segregations.
The full story of the Negro Leagues should be preserved for
generations to come and the passage of this legislation gives the
museum another tool to do just that.
I highly recommend a visit to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum for
anybody who is in Kansas City. Whether you are a baseball fan or not,
you will be moved by what you see and the stories you are told at the
museum. You will be encouraged and inspired in every way by seeing how
these players confronted the injustices of their times, and with great
spirit and energy overcame all obstacles placed in front of them.
This museum is a first-class operation of 10,000 square feet in the
historic 18th and Vine neighborhood in Kansas City. It entertains
60,000 visitors a year. There is a number of key features to the
museum, but I think the passage through which you can walk and see a
timeline of the Negro Leagues' development, and then next to it a
timeline of important events in American history and the civil rights
movement, is very enlightening and very moving. You will learn about
these leagues and the players as people, and through that and through
their experiences, you will learn about the times. These were not
downtrodden men who played in this game, nor were the owners or the
fans.
They were joyous. They played a game they loved, and they played it
extremely well. Yet in the context of everything they did was the legal
and social situation in the United States they were battling, over
which they eventually triumphed.
Those who visit will be encouraged and inspired by seeing how those
players confronted the injustices and other difficulties of their time
with great spirit and energy and overcame the obstacles in front of
them.
I congratulate everybody at the museum who continues to work so very
hard to make sure the story of the Negro Leagues is a piece of history
that is preserved for future generations. The passage of this
legislation is an important way to honor the museum, its employees, all
its volunteers and supporters for their years of tireless advocacy on
behalf of the baseball legends of the Negro Leagues.
I especially thank and congratulate Don Motley, Bob Kendrick, Annie
Pressley, and Buck O'Neil of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum for
their dedication and assistance in passing this resolution.
I also thank Senator Durbin for cosponsoring this resolution with me
and others who cosponsored it as well.
I am not going to take up much more time of the Senate. I know we are
taking a little break from the important immigration debate, but I
can't pass up the opportunity to put in a good word about my friend
Buck O'Neil and the tremendous work he continues to do for the Negro
Leagues Baseball Museum. Buck is a true American treasure whose
illustrious baseball career spans seven decades. It has made him one of
the game's foremost authorities and certainly one of its greatest
ambassadors.
I am not going to go through all of Buck's statistics as a player, as
a manager in the Negro Leagues, or as the first African American who
became a coach in the Major Leagues. He did so with the Cubs. In that
capacity, he discovered superstars such as Lou Brock, for which I am
very grateful. If he had been in control of the Cubs' front office,
they would not have traded Lou Brock to the Cardinals for Ernie Broglio
in 1964, and they might have won a couple pennants themselves. So I am
grateful Buck was not the Cubs' general manager at the time. I don't
think he would have made that mistake.
In 1988, after more than 30 years with the Cubs, he returned home to
Kansas City to scout for the Kansas City Royals.
Today Buck serves as chairman of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum he
helped to found. The work he has done after he retired from the game
may be even more significant to the history of baseball than his
exploits as a player or manager. Nobody has done more to build this
museum and to call the rest of us to remember the significance of Negro
Leagues Baseball than Buck O'Neil.
He has reminded us that the leagues are significant in so many ways
on so many different levels. They represent a triumph of the human
spirit, tremendous sportsmanship, high quality of play, and were of
vital importance to the African-American community of the time, and
they led directly to the integration of the Major Leagues.
[[Page S2865]]
The work of Buck O'Neil and the museum led the Hall of Fame to hold
special elections earlier this year to elect a class of Negro Leagues
and pre-Negro Leagues ballplayers into the 2006 Hall of Fame induction
class. On February 27, 2006, the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown announced
that 17 former Negro Leagues and pre-Negro Leagues players and
executives would be inducted into the Hall of Fame in July 2006. That
was largely because of the efforts pushed by Buck and the Negro Leagues
Baseball Museum and concurred in by Major League Baseball. It was a
bittersweet day for me and many of us in Missouri because the one name
missing from that list of 17 players and executives was Buck O'Neil.
I certainly think there is nobody who meets the criteria for
induction into the Hall of Fame more than Buck. If you look at his
statistics on the field as a player, his years as a scout, his years as
a manager and a coach, even more than that, his years as an ambassador
for baseball, a happy warrior for the Negro Leagues and the Negro
Leagues Baseball Museum, it more than qualifies him for admission into
the Hall of Fame. I hope we can find some way to correct this oversight
quickly.
In closing, I thank the Senate for its patience. I thank my friend
and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, for his assistance and
support in moving this legislation swiftly through the Energy
Committee.
I thank the colleagues who supported the legislation and allowed it
to pass by unanimous consent last night. The story of the Negro Leagues
is a story of true American heroes who contributed to this Nation on
and off the field and confronted life with courage, with sacrifice, and
eventually with triumph in the face of injustice. I hope the Members of
the Senate will take an opportunity when they are in the area to learn
more about these heroes by visiting what I hope and believe will soon
become known as America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in
Kansas City, MO.
I thank the Senate, and I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, if I may ask a question of the
Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Talent for his
leadership on this important issue. As a person who lives in Mobile,
AL, I am proud of Satchel Paige. I assume he will be in the museum.
Mr. TALENT. Yes; he has a big place in the museum.
Mr. SESSIONS. Satchel Paige was denied the right to fully participate
in American baseball until the very end of his career. That was a
tragedy. It was really a tragedy. It is something our Nation cannot
take pride in and should feel great sadness over. A number of other
Negro Leagues players came from Mobile, which is a great bastion of
baseball excellence, including Willie McCovey and Hank Aaron, among
others, who developed out of that history of excellent baseball.
I thank the Senator from Missouri for his leadership. I think it will
be an important addition to our national heritage to have this museum.
Mr. TALENT. I thank the Senator for his comments.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, today I wish to pay homage to Buck
O'Neil a splendid athlete, a peerless ambassador of baseball, and a
wonderful man who has become an American icon beloved by millions.
Many people first got to know Buck O'Neil as a major contributor to
``Baseball,'' Ken Burns's landmark documentary on our national pastime.
While narrating the history of the Negro Leagues and the breaking of
the color line in Major League Baseball, Buck passed along not only his
prodigious knowledge of baseball and the society it helped to change
forever but also his indomitable spirit, joy of living, and love of the
game.
Before becoming a television star, Buck O'Neil was a baseball star in
the Negro Leagues. As a first baseman and manager between 1937 and
1955, he played on nine championship teams and three East-West All Star
teams, won a batting title, starred in two Negro Leagues World Series,
and managed five pennant winners and five All Star teams. As manager of
the Kansas City Monarchs, he mentored more than three dozen players who
eventually made it to the Major Leagues.
In 1962, Buck O'Neil became the first African-American coach in the
Major Leagues, where he helped the Chicago Cubs' Ernie Banks, Billy
Williams, and Lou Brock develop the skills that led them to the
Baseball Hall of Fame.
Today, at age 94, Buck is still bubbling over with enthusiasm for
baseball, life, and his fellow human beings. He continues to serve on
the Veterans' Committee at the Hall of Fame and as chairman of the
Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City.
On May 6, 2006, the San Diego Padres will honor Buck O'Neil as part
of their Third Annual Salute to the Negro Leagues. I am honored that
this statement will be a part of that salute, and I send my great
admiration and appreciation along to Buck O'Neil and all of the other
great players of the Negro Leagues.
Mr. President, I know that you and all of our colleagues in the U.S.
Senate will join me in sending our best wishes to Buck O'Neil for this
very special day and for many more years of great service to baseball
and the Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Missouri as
well for his great words on behalf of the contribution to baseball that
has been made by some of our country's finest sportsmen.
I thank my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, for his good
work in this Chamber. I also note he and I were participants in a codel
that just went into Iraq and Afghanistan. The issues we face around the
world on national security are so important that it is going to require
a coming together of our country to make sure we are working toward the
creation of a better, safer, and more secure world.
I want to speak briefly to the bill that is currently before this
Chamber, and that is the immigration reform bill in its comprehensive
form that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I believe from a
national security and homeland security perspective this Chamber is
working on one of the most very important issues facing our Nation
today, and that is the issue of making sure we take our broken borders
and the lawlessness coming across the borders and create a system that
is comprehensive in nature to address that lawlessness.
I believe the legislation which came out of the Judiciary Committee
does that, and it does so by making sure, first and foremost, that we
are strengthening our borders, and secondly, making sure that within
the interior, we are creating the kind of immigration law enforcement
program that is going to be effective; that looking at the immigration
laws and simply ignoring them is a chapter which will go away if we are
able to get our hands around passage of this bill. And finally, dealing
with the reality of the 11 million workers in America--those workers
who toil in our fields, those workers who work in our restaurants,
those workers who work in our factories, and all of those who make the
kind of lifestyle we have in America possible--we need to address those
issues with respect to what some have said is the big elephant in that
room, and we need to do it in a thoughtful and humane manner that
upholds the rule of law of our Nation.
I want to speak briefly about the importance of border security and
what this legislation does.
In the days after 9/11, when we have hundreds of thousands of people
coming into this country, without any sense of where they are coming
from, whether they come here to seek a good job and to be a part of the
American dream, or whether they come as terrorists across the border,
it makes the statement that we need to make sure we are doing
everything within our power to strengthen those borders. This
legislation out of the Judiciary Committee does exactly that. It does
so by adding 12,000 new officers to make sure our borders are being
patrolled. We go from a staff level of about 12,000 Border Patrol
officers up to an additional 12,000 and that will get us to almost
25,000 people who will be deployed along our borders to make sure we
can enforce the law.
It creates additional border fences in those places where we know now
there are significant streams of illegal and undocumented workers
coming back
[[Page S2866]]
and forth across the borders. So it creates those additional fences.
It creates virtual fences by deploying the kind of technology that
allows us to detect movement across our border.
It also makes sure we create the avenues for checkpoints and ports of
entry so we don't have the massive backup on the borders on either
side.
I believe the border security aspects of this legislation are where
Republicans and Democrats should come together in the name of national
and homeland security, and we should be supportive of this legislation
for that very purpose.
Second, this legislation is also about enforcing our laws. It is
about making sure we have an immigration system where everyone in our
country is standing up for enforcing the rule of law.
We will do that by providing an additional 5,000 new investigators to
make sure those laws are being enforced. Today there are many
violations of our immigration laws that are taking place across every
one of our States in America, and yet our immigration laws simply are
on the books. They are not being enforced. A law on the books that is
not being enforced is almost like not having a law at all. So what we
will do is hire 5,000 additional investigators and create the law
enforcement capacity to make sure those laws are being enforced in the
interior.
In addition, when apprehension occurs of someone who is here
illegally, it is difficult to find a place to house these individuals
until they are deported. This legislation calls for an additional 20
detention facilities. Those 20 detention facilities will give us the
capacity to process those who are breaking the laws of immigration.
The legislation also addresses a very important issue that is
critical to State and local governments. State and local governments
have been dealing with the influx of undocumented workers and illegal
aliens in our country for a very long time. Yet there has been no
system providing them compensation for what they are doing to try to
enforce the laws at the State and local level, essentially on behalf of
the Federal Government because this is a Federal issue, after all. What
this legislation will do is provide reimbursement for the States for
the detention and imprisonment of criminal aliens.
The legislation also requires a faster deportation process. I go back
to the old adage of justice delayed is sometimes justice denied. We
have people who are sometimes waiting in the system for months and
months and years and years without coming to any kind of resolution.
This legislation will require a faster deportation process.
There are significant provisions in this legislation that will make
additional criminal activity for gang members, money laundering, and
for human traffickers. We know human trafficking across the borders
creates tremendous hardship on people. It also demeans people and
results in the deaths of many people. We know there is gang activity
along the border that deals with drug trafficking and a whole host of
illegal activity. We need to make sure those involved in that kind of
criminal activity are brought to justice.
Finally, in terms of enforcing our immigration laws, it is important
we address what has become an industry in this country in terms of
production of fraudulent documents and identification cards used in
this country. President Bush's wish to create a tamperproof card that
will go along with this guest worker program is a step in the right
direction because it will get us to the point where we will have a
tamperproof card and we can avoid the identity theft and identity fraud
we see going on in this arena.
Finally, I want to address a third point in what I consider to be
this law and order bill, and that is our penalties that come along with
this legislation for the 11 million undocumented workers who are in
this country. There is a monetary penalty that is applied. In addition,
unlike all Americans, there is a requirement that those who are here
and undocumented have to register, and they must register on an annual
basis. For all of us who are Americans, there is no requirement of
registration. If we don't want to have a Social Security card or if we
don't want to have a license or if we don't want to be a part of the
Government, our right as an American citizen is not to register. For
this group of people, we are going to require them to register with the
U.S. Government.
There is a whole host of other things that is required of these 11
million people, including the requirement that they learn English,
including the requirement that they pass a criminal background check
and that they pass a medical exam, and the list of requirements goes on
and on and on. I believe the legislation that was produced by the
Judiciary Committee is, in fact, a law and order bill. It addresses a
very fundamental issue that is of paramount importance to all of us in
this Nation and that is the security of our Nation and the security of
our homeland.
Finally, I conclude by making a statement about the humanitarian
issues that ought to concern all of us with respect to our broken
borders. I heard my good friend Senator John McCain at the outset of
the consideration of this legislation by the Senate a few days ago,
talking about what he had seen in Arizona and how the Arizona Republic
had reported that, I believe it was in 2004, 300 people had been found
in the desert. Later he discussed how in the following year there were
some 406 or 407 people who had been found dead in the desert, people
who had died of thirst and hunger, rape and pillage and murder, out in
the desert. Perhaps it is only in America when we see those kinds of
conditions that we as an American society say, That ought to be
unacceptable to us as a country. How can we have 300, 400, 500 people a
year die in the deserts of Arizona? That is the kind of inhumanity that
ought to cause all of us as leaders in our country and all of us in our
society to say, We must do something about this.
I was moved by Senator McCain's description of some of the people who
were dying in the desert, including the story of the 2-year-old girl
who had died in the desert and the 13 year old who had died clutching
her rosary in that desert in Arizona.
I believe America can, in fact, come to grips with this problem. I
believe we have an opportunity here in the Senate to deal with this
issue. I am very hopeful my colleagues, both my Democratic colleagues
and Republican colleagues, who are working on this issue will not let
this historic opportunity we have pass us by. It is this time, it is
this day, it is this week where I believe we as a nation can come
together and develop comprehensive immigration reform that is long term
and that will be long lasting.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Salazar. We did indeed
have a most important trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey,
and were able to delve into some of those matters that are so important
to our national security and check on the quality of care our troops
are receiving. I enjoyed that very much. He is a fine addition to our
Senate. I think we have a lot of agreements on this legislation, and
some disagreements. I appreciate the opportunity we have to discuss
these issues.
This debate is often centered around whether we are dealing with
amnesty here, and I believe this legislation, by all definitions, is
amnesty. But first I want to ask the question: Why is this so? Why is
it that people care about whether we use a word such as ``amnesty'' to
describe what this legislation that is before us today is? Why is that
important?
It is important because most of us, when we were out campaigning for
election, promised not to do amnesty again. Many people in this body
who voted for the 1986 amnesty bill agreed it was amnesty and said they
wouldn't do it again. The President of the United States, President
Bush, despite all of his intentions to try to enhance legal immigration
in our country, has always said he did not favor amnesty. So that is
the deal. I think the American people have a right to expect that those
they elect to office will honor what a fair interpretation of the
meaning of that word is. If you promise not to support amnesty, then
you shouldn't support a bill that is amnesty.
You can redefine words to make them mean most anything you want. My
definition of an activist judge is a person who redefines the meaning
of words to have them say whatever he or she would like them to say so
they can
[[Page S2867]]
accomplish a result they consider to be desirable. But words do have
meaning. We can have some understanding of what these issues are about,
and I want to discuss it in some detail.
Senator Kennedy said:
Many have called this adjusted status amnesty. I reject it.
Amnesty means forgiveness, not pardon.
Well, I don't know exactly what that means. He said: This bill is not
amnesty.
He goes on to say: ``Amnesty is not a pardon.''
Senator Durbin, the assistant Democratic leader, said: ``Amnesty
basically says, We forgive you.''
He goes on to say:
Amnesty, very simply, is if you have been charged and found
guilty of a crime, amnesty says, we forgive you. We are not
going to hold you responsible for your crime.
But only if you have been charged and found guilty, apparently.
Senator Feinstein says: ``Amnesty is instant forgiveness, with no
conditions. And there are conditions,'' she says, ``on this'' bill.
Senator Specter said:
Amnesty is a code word to try to smear good-faith
legislation to deal with this problem. It is not amnesty
because the law-breakers have not been unconditionally
forgiven of their transgressions.
And Senator McCain said also:
There is no requirements. There must be no requirement
whatsoever to call this bill amnesty.
He said:
Amnesty is simply declaring people who entered this country
illegally citizens of the United States and imposing no other
requirements on them. That is not what we do, Mr. President.
So in an effort to redefine this situation to mean what they want it
to mean, they have said unless there is no condition whatsoever, you
can't have amnesty. But people agreed that 1986 was amnesty and placed
quite a number of conditions--some more significant than the ones in
this bill--on those who were given amnesty.
Those of us who are familiar with the law world--I served as a lawyer
the best I could for a number of years, and I know Madam President is a
lawyer--we know what Black's Law Dictionary is. It is a dictionary
lawyers use to define words in their legal context. Black's Law
Dictionary, as part of its definition of the word ``amnesty,'' says
this:
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided
amnesty for many undocumented aliens already present in the
country.
Black's Law Dictionary, the final definition of legal words, says the
1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for people
here. It had conditions on it. It had some conditions on it; it just
didn't have many conditions on it. So everybody recognizes it as
basically amnesty, and that is why they called it that.
Again, I am not trying to use a code word here. What I am saying is
there is a systematic effort in this body to redefine the definition of
amnesty so they can tell their voters back home that although they
opposed amnesty, this bill is not amnesty, and that is why they voted
for it. That, unfortunately, I would have to say, is where we are.
What does the Democratic leader in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid,
say about what amnesty is? Does he say that 1986 was amnesty and it had
quite a few restrictions on the movement to full benefits of
citizenship in the United States? This is what the Democratic leader
says. This is what he said on September 20, 1993, when making a speech
on the floor in the Senate; it is part of the Congressional Record. He
said:
In 1986 we granted amnesty, and I voted against that
provision in law. We granted amnesty to 3.2 million illegal
immigrants. After being in this country for 10 years, the
average amnesty recipient had a sixth-grade education, earned
less than $6 an hour, and presently qualifies for the earned-
income tax credit.
The earned income tax credit is if you don't make enough money to pay
income taxes and don't pay income taxes, not only do you not have to
pay them but they give you money back. The average benefit for a person
who qualifies for the earned-income tax credit, I would say
parenthetically if anybody is interested, is $2,400 per year.
So that is what Senator Reid had to say about it in 1993, that the
1986 law was amnesty. I don't think anybody disputes that 1986 was
amnesty.
He made another speech. We have a chart and I want to refer to it
because I want to drive this point home. On March 10 of 1994, the
Democratic leader in this body today, Senator Reid, said this:
In 1986, Congress gave amnesty and legal status to 3.1
million individuals not lawfully residing here. . . . Even
after Congress has passed massive legalization programs,
millions of individuals do not lawfully reside in the United
States today.
That was true in 1994, a mere 8 years after the bill passed.
He continues:
And many more continue to cheat the rules and continue to
enter unlawfully.
That is a true statement, I submit, this very day.
So did the Democratic leader have any doubt that 1986 was an amnesty
law? I don't think so. In fact, everybody knows it was. That is what we
defined it as.
I want to go over some of the provisions in that act and compare it
to the provisions in today's act. Let's talk honestly here. There is no
mystery here. I would submit, as several of the proponents of this
legislation have tried to do, that you only have amnesty if you put no
condition whatsoever on the person who is here illegally--and they put
some conditions on those persons. Therefore, they say, Oh, no, I know
we promised not to pass amnesty, but this isn't amnesty because there
are conditions on the people who are here illegally. So there is no way
to do this but go over it truthfully and analyze it and see what the
facts are.
This was passed in 1986. What did it require, this amnesty of 1986?
It required continuous unlawful residence in the United States before
January 1, 1982. That is 4 years before the passage of the 1986 act--
more than 4 years, because I am sure it didn't pass January 1. So for
more than 4 years you had to be here unlawfully before this act applied
to you. That is a restriction, isn't it, on amnesty, under the
definition of those who want to say the current act is not amnesty?
But what does the 2006 act say? Physically present and employed in
the United States before January 7, 2004--employed in the U.S. since
January 7, 2004; continuous employment is not required. So the key date
here is that you have to have been in the country before January 7,
2004. So we are requiring under this bill that you have to live in the
country illegally for 2 years before you get on this amnesty track.
Under the previous law, they required 4 years. So with regard to
1986, I think it is a tougher standard, I submit, than we have in
today's standard. I don't think anybody can dispute that.
Then you have a fee. They say they are paying a fine, a big fine.
Well, in the 1986 act, they say there will be a $185 fee for the
principal applicant, $50 for each child, a $420 family cap. Now we have
a $1,000 fine, but it does not apply to anybody under 21 years of age;
they don't pay anything. They paid $50 per child back in 1986. They
don't pay anything. I submit that is about a wash. There is a little
difference in money. You had an inflation rate; what difference is
$1,000 to $420?
Both of them say you should meet admissibility criteria. That means,
I suppose, that you are not a felon. That is one of the main criteria.
Both of them said that. Surely we are not going to be taking in felons
into the country. In fact, regarding this bill to which Senator Kyl and
Cornyn have offered an amendment--which apparently is being blocked by
Democratic Leader Reid from ever getting a vote--they are contending
that this criminality requirement is not in this bill. In fact, this
bill is weaker than the 1986 bill on the question of that issue of
whether you have a criminal record.
In 1986, people were worried about welfare claims and so forth, so
they put in language that said you are ineligible for most public
benefits for 5 years after your application. They said if you are going
to come here to be a citizen of the United States, we do not want you
come here to claim welfare. We are going to prohibit you from claiming
welfare for at least 5 years. After that, if you get in trouble and you
need help, we will help you. But you have to come here not with a
desire to gain welfare benefits in our country which exceed the annual
income of most people in a
[[Page S2868]]
lot of areas of the world. So they put that in. There is no such
requirement in our bill. None of that. You can immediately go on
welfare, presumably, under the legislation that is before us now.
It does require a background check and fingerprinting, but presumably
that was done in 1986, also. But it focuses really on the crimes a
person may have committed while they were in the United States. I don't
think it has a mechanism under this act to actually go back to the
country of origin--whether it is Brazil or Canada or Mexico--to see if
they have a criminal history there. That is a weakness in the system.
But even if it does, those systems are so immature and nonexistent, it
would not be very effective, I suggest.
This requires an 18-month residency period. This one authorizes
immediately a 6-year stay in the country. So they said you have to stay
18 months before you make your application for adjustment to permanent
resident status. In this bill, you have to stay 6 years, so that is
tougher. And you have to work. What are people here for if not to work?
Spouses and children don't have to work. People are here to work. It is
only a minimal work requirement--not continuous employment--and the
proof level is very weak. Regardless, presumably the people who are
here want to work, and they ought to be able to prove that they have.
Then you adjust to permanent resident status. That is the green card.
In 1986, it required English language and civics. So, in 2006, it is
English language and civics, a medical exam, payment of taxes--really?
Presumably the people are paying their taxes. And Selective Service
registration. So you earn your right to stay in this country by coming
into the country illegally and paying your taxes. Thanks a lot.
Then the final step is, in 1986, you paid an $80 fee, $240 for a
family. In this bill, it is a $1,000 fee and an application fee.
All I am saying is, if you add those up, I don't think a principled
case can be made that 2006, in terms of conditions of entry and amnesty
in our country, requires any more stringent requirements on them than
in 1986, which Senator Reid and everybody else, including ``Black's Law
Dictionary,'' have concluded was amnesty.
I say to my colleagues, I would be very dubious of someone who comes
up to you and says: Now, Senator, I know you promised in your campaign
repeatedly, just as President Bush did, that you would not support
amnesty. Don't worry about it. This bill is not amnesty.
I am telling you, the American people are pretty fairminded, and they
know perfection is not possible for any of us. But this has not been an
issue which has not been discussed. Everybody has talked about the
failure of the 1986 bill. As a result, we wanted to do something
different. We said we were not going to do that again and we were not
going to grant amnesty. I submit this bill does. I wish it were not so.
We can pass legislation that will work. I have repeatedly said we can
pass legislation that has good enforcement. We can pass legislation
that provides fair treatment to the millions of people who are here.
They are not all going to have to be removed from our country and be
arrested and prosecuted. That is not so. That is not part of any plan
here. But we do need to recognize that we should not give every single
benefit to someone who came illegally that we give to those who follow
the law and come legally.
Senator Leahy, who says this bill is not amnesty, even admits this is
amnesty in 1986. He says:
Opponents of a fair comprehensive approach are quick to
claim that anything but the most punitive provisions are
amnesty.
I am not claiming that.
They are wrong. We had an amnesty bill. President Reagan
signed an amnesty bill in 1986.
I suppose he voted for it.
This is not an amnesty bill. Our bill is more properly
called what it is, a smart, tough bill. The amnesty bill was
signed by President Reagan in 1986, and this is different.
But it is not different. Fundamentally, it is the same thing. I
submit that is indisputable, and that is why we have a difficulty here.
Some of those masters of the universe, sitting up in those glass towers
who write editorials, and the Chamber of Commerce, they don't
understand what it is like to campaign for office, look your voters in
the eye, and discuss directly with them the issues facing our country,
and to make commitments to them about what you are going to do once you
get elected. They can redefine the meaning of words and think that is
just fine. They can just say whatever they want to and then write their
editorials. But they don't have to answer to the people they looked in
the eye and directly told they would not support amnesty.
In fact, the President, despite his drive to fix immigration and to
enhance the flow of immigration into our country, has said a direct
path to citizenship--by Scott McClellan, just less than 2 weeks ago.
Scott McClellan said a direct path to citizenship and amnesty are two
things they don't favor.
Why is this important? After 1986, we ended up with a big problem.
Things were not working well in our country. So 6 years after this
happened, in 1992, we did an evaluation by an independent commission of
that part of the act which dealt with agricultural workers as part of
the Immigration Reform and Control Act. That was the name of it, the
``Immigration Reform and Control Act.'' We told American voters--or
those in the Congress at that time did--that we are going to control
the immigration system.
The congressionally created Commission on Agricultural Workers issued
a report to Congress that studied the effects of the 1986 agricultural
amnesty on the agricultural industry. They did a study on it because
Congress wanted to find out what had really happened with regard to
that legislation they had passed. One of the first things the
Commission acknowledged was that the number of workers given amnesty
under the bill had been severely underestimated. They said this:
The SAW program legalized many more farm workers than
expected. It appears that the number of undocumented workers
who had worked in seasonal agricultural services prior to the
Immigration Reform and Control Act was generally
underestimated.
That is page 1 and 2 of their report, the executive summary.
What else did the Commission find? Did it tell us that the 1986
amnesty of 3 million farm workers solved our agricultural labor
problems? Was that the fix that people thought it would be? How did it
work?
No, their answer was this:
Six years after the IRCA was signed into law, the problems
within the system of agricultural labor continue to exist. In
most areas, an increasing number of newly arriving,
unauthorized [illegal] workers compete for available jobs,
reducing the number of work hours available to all harvest
workers and contributing to lower annual earnings.
That is page 1 of the Report of the Commission of Agricultural
Workers, executive summary.
What did the Commission recommend that Congress do? What did they
recommend, this independent, bipartisan Commission? Did the Commission
recommend that we pass a second legalization program such as the one
for agricultural jobs that has been made a part of this bill, offered
in committee and is now part of the committee bill that is on the
floor? Did they recommend that as a second program to solve the illegal
alien agricultural workforce dilemma that was still in existence in
1992, 6 years after the amnesty that was supposed to end all amnesties
occurred?
No, the Commission concluded just the opposite. They found:
The worker-specific and industry-specific legalization
programs as contained in the Immigration Reform and Control
Act should not be the basis for future immigration policy.
That is page 6 of their report.
What did the Commission suggest that Congress should do? They
concluded that the only way to have a structured and stable
agricultural market was to increase enforcement of our immigration
laws, including employer sanctions, and to reduce illegal immigration.
You talk to anybody on the street, and they will tell you the same
thing. You talk to Americans. Overwhelmingly, 80 percent believe we are
not enforcing the laws effectively on our borders, and any legalization
today without an effective enforcement program in the future will bring
us back to an amnesty situation just like we face now, just like they
faced in 1986.
[[Page S2869]]
The Commission said this:
Illegal immigration must be curtailed. This should be
accomplished with more effective border controls, better
internal apprehension mechanisms, and enhanced enforcement of
employer sanctions. The U.S. Government should also develop a
better employment eligibility and identification system.
This was 1993, 13 years ago. What has been done about it? Let me
repeat that. We need to establish a:
. . . better employment eligibility and identification
system, including a fraud-proof work authorization document
for all persons legally authorized to work in the United
States so that employer sanctions can more effectively deter
the employment of unauthorized workers.
What a commonsense statement that is. Wasn't that what they promised
back in 1986 when we were going to have an amnesty to end all
amnesties? Remember that they said this would be a one-time amnesty and
we were going to fix the enforcement system and therefore the American
people would go with us on that. We are going to do this one-time fix
and be generous to those who violated our laws. But trust us, we are
going to fix the enforcement system in the future. That is what
happened.
We have known that for 14 years--that the key to securing our borders
and ending illegal immigration includes more border enforcement, more
interior enforcement, and a foolproof worksite verification system.
Still, we are not prepared to do that. We are told we should do the
same thing we did in 1986 on a much larger scale.
I note that in 1986, we estimated there were 1 million people here
who would claim amnesty. That is what people were told when the bill
passed. After the bill passed, how many showed up? Three-point-one
million people, three times as many.
I don't know where they are saying 12 million people, and that is how
many will be given amnesty now, not 1 million. They are saying there
will be 11 million and that those would all be given a direct path to
citizenship.
Let me point this out. When you adjust to permanent resident status,
you get a green card. You are able to stay here permanently, as long as
you live here, and after a period of time--5 years--you can make
application and you become a citizen. If you haven't been convicted of
a felony in the meantime, presumably if you don't pay your taxes and
don't get caught for it or don't get convicted of it, you can still do
so. Presumably you are drawing welfare or Medicare benefits and those
things, you can still make application.
We added up the years. Maybe about 11 years in this process, 10
years, maybe, in the 1986 act, and about 11 years in process. They are
saying it takes 11 years for you to become a citizen. That is what it
took for anyone who came here in the first amnesty and became a
permanent resident. They didn't get to become a citizen the next day;
they had to go through the same process as this amnesty requires.
Let me explain why 1986 was a failure and why we can have every
expectation that 2006 will be a failure. I am going to be frank with
our Members. I don't believe this is an extreme statement. I am
prepared to defend it. I believe everyone here who is honest about it
will admit it.
In 1986, we passed amnesty, and it became law as soon as that bill
was signed. Those people were eligible to be made legal immediately in
our country and placed on a track to citizenship that day--the day the
bill was signed. What did we have about enforcement? We had a promise
that we were going to enforce the law in the future. We are going to
fix this border, and we are going to have workplace enforcement.
That was a mere promise. It never happened because I don't think any
President wanted it to happen. We went back to the problem when
President Carter was here, President Reagan, President Bush, President
Clinton, and this President Bush. None of them have demonstrated that
they actually intend to enforce our border laws.
I used to be a Federal prosecutor. I used to deal with law
enforcement issues. I actually prosecuted one day--I think when I was
an assistant U.S. attorney--an immigration case, a stowaway on a ship.
A bunch of them stowed away on a ship. I know a little bit about it.
But those actions which are necessary to make the legal system work
were never taken by our Chief Executives. We in Congress can study the
problem at the border, we can see what those problems are, and then we
can pass a law to try to fix it. We can say we want more border patrol,
we want more fencing, we want more UAVs, a virtual fence. We can pass
those things, but unless the executive branch really wants it to
succeed, then--even then, we may not get the thing to work.
The truth is, they should be coming to us. President Bush comes to us
and says what he needs to win the war in Iraq, and we give it to him.
If he came to this Congress--I hate to say it because I think he is a
great President and a great person, and I support him on so many
things. But he has never come to our Congress and said: Congress, this
border is out of control; I need A, B, C, and D, and I will get it
under control. So now he wants us to grant blanket amnesty to 11
million people, and after you do that: Trust me, I will get the border
under control. That is a sad fact. Securing the border is the
President's responsibility.
What about Congress? We were in committee and we were debating the
bill. I offered an amendment to add 10,000 detention beds for the
Border Patrol. I do not know how many they need. I think that is not
enough. We are at 1.1 people coming into our country illegally every
year. The number of people other than Mexicans who really need to be
detained, sometimes for an extended period of time, has surged. We need
the detention spaces to make the system work. Do you know what they all
said, Democrats and Republicans? Fine. We accept that amendment.
Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment to speed up the hiring of
new Border Patrol agents. They accepted that. Then it hit me. All who
have been in this body for some time know the difference between
authorization and spending the money, appropriations. In this body,
people authorize all the time.
I just left one of the finest groups of people you would every want
to meet outside--national forensic science leaders from around the
country. They came to see me because I supported a bill, and we passed
it, the Paul Coverdell forensic sciences bill. It was to add $100
million to help jump-start forensic sciences in America. Do you think
that $100 million was ever appropriated? Certainly not. I think we may
have gotten to $20 million one year. Because you authorize money to be
spent for forensic sciences or for immigration enforcement does not
mean that it is ever going to get spent. It has to go through the
appropriations process. Maybe they want to spend it on a project back
home. Maybe they decided we need more money for Katrina, health issues,
education, whatever. At the end of the day, you don't get the money. So
we have at least two major problems: One, will it ever be appropriated
and two, if the money is appropriated, will the President actually use
it effectively?
I admit that this Congress authorized a budget that set forth a
projected expenditure for immigration enforcement that is larger than
the President requested, but it remains to be seen if it will ever be
funded.
Those are the things which cause us great concern. So I would
challenge quite directly the people who support this bill and say this
is going to be different than 1986 to come down on the floor of this
Senate, look at their colleagues and people who may be watching back
home directly in the eye, and assure them that we are going to have the
money and we are going to have the will to enforce this legislation.
I was on a radio talk show earlier today. I was asked about
enforcement actions that were taken against certain big businesses
recently. They all called their Congressmen and complained, and the
enforcement sort of went away. You have heard those stories. Do we have
the will to actually make this happen? I think we could. I am not
hopeless about this. I think we could, but I don't get the sense that
we are there yet.
I have compared it to leaping across a 10-foot chasm but leaping only
8 feet, and like the Coyote and the Roadrunner, you fall to the bottom
of the pit. That is where we are. We have some things in this bill
which make enforcement much more likely to occur, but it does not all
get there yet. We need to do a number of things.
For example, employment: The workplace law and provisions in the bill
are
[[Page S2870]]
not effective and do not cover all employees of an employer. It is a
critical step. You have heard it said that this bill has fencing in it.
It is the most minimal amount of fencing; it is nothing like a
legitimate fencing.
I wish to say this: Good fences make good neighbors. There is nothing
wrong with a fence. There is nothing in the Scripture that says you
can't build a fence. You have thousands of people coming across the
border in a given area, and you have just a few Border Patrol officers,
and they are trying to do their duty every day. And you say it is
somehow offensive or improper or against the Lord's will to build a
fence to try to contain it so you can maximize the capabilities of the
limited number of Border Patrol agents who are out there putting their
lives at risk this very day to try to enforce these laws? They arrest
1.1 million a year. What possible objection could we have to legitimate
fencing?
They built one in San Diego; it was an unqualified success. They said
it could be breached. I am told the one in San Diego has never been
breached. What happened on both sides of the fence, where lawlessness,
crime, gangs, and drugs were disrupting entire neighborhoods? Those
neighborhoods have been restored. They have come back strong. They are
prospering. The property values are up as a result of bringing some
lawfulness to a lawless area.
Let me say this. Why is it that there has been such an aversion to
fences? I will tell you why. Because those who want to have open
borders, who have no desire to see the laws enforced, know, first of
all, that it will work; and second of all, they have used it to twist
the argument and to say that anybody who favors a fence wants no
immigration, they want to stop all immigration, they just want to build
a fence around America--totally mischaracterizing the need for a
barrier on our borders. That is not fair. That is wrong.
The amendment I offered would have increased substantially the number
of border-crossing points, so lawful people could come back and forth
far easier and at less expense with a biometric card. They could enter
and exit the country with it. This could work. We can make this work.
We need more legal exit and entry points, and we need to block the
illegal entry points. If we do that and we send a message throughout
the world that the border is now closed and no longer open to those who
want to come illegally, I think we will have a lot less people
wandering off in the desert, being abused by those who transport them,
and putting their lives at risk and many of them dying.
That is what you need to do. I am prepared to support any legislation
that would increase legal immigration. When we end illegal immigration,
we are going to need to increase the opportunity for people in numbers
to come here lawfully, and we need to increase the exit and entry
points.
Another thing. I mentioned this biometric card and entering and
exiting the country. Let me tell you why some of us are concerned about
promises in the future.
We passed, 10 years ago, the US-VISIT program. It is supposed to do
just what I said. A person comes to this country legally, comes with a
card. It is a computer-read card, and the person is then approved for
entry. They need a biometric identifier, a fingerprint, and it can read
that. You are allowed to come in. It also calculates when you leave, so
people who do not leave can be identified and removed because they
didn't comply with the law.
Well, 10 years after passing that bill, we still don't have that
system up and running. They tell us that this summer, we will have some
pilot program which can actually identify those when they exit in
certain border places, which, of course, means it is no system at all.
We authorized 10 years ago a perfectly logical, sensible system to
monitor the legal entry of people into our country, monitor their exit.
What we have learned, particularly after September 11, is that many of
the terrorists were overstays. They came lawfully, but they did not
exit on time.
We need additional bed space. This is so basic. Not an unlimited
number of beds, but we need more. What is happening is, people come
across the border, and particularly those other-than-Mexicans cannot be
readily taken back across the border and dumped if they are from
Brazil, Russia, or China. What do we do with these people? They need to
be held and they need to be transported back. We are doing that, to
some degree.
But what happens when we do not have the bed space? This is what
happens. I read a newspaper article in the committee a couple of months
ago on this very subject. People come in from foreign countries. They
come into the border, enter illegally, head off across the desert, they
see a border patrol officer and they are told to go up to the border
patrol officer and turn themselves in.
Why would they do that? The border patrol officer puts them in the
van or his vehicle and he takes them another 100 miles inside the
border to the Customs and Border Protection Office and they are taken
before an administrative officer. What does the administrative officer
do? He does not have any beds or place to put them, so he says we will
have a hearing on whether you are legally here. We will have a hearing
and we will set it in 30 days. I will release you on bail; come back in
30 days.
How many do you think come back? The newspaper reporter said at the
place he examined, 95 percent did not show up. So all we have done is
send the border patrol agents out to pick them up and transport people
into the country illegally. That does not make sense. We have to have a
certain amount of detention space.
We have an insufficient number of Border Patrol agents. There are
just not enough. We need to get to that tipping point where people
realize it is not going to work if they try to enter illegally. We
added some Border Patrol agents in committee, but they say it takes
years to hire them. That is why we passed, 5 years ago, legislation to
add increased numbers of Border Patrol agents. Senator Kyl got that
through. Being on the Arizona border, he knew the problem. What
happened? They still have just now been hired 5 years later. They say
it is hard to hire enough people.
I was reading recently a book on World War I. When World War I
started, we had 130,000 people in our Army, and 18 months later we had
4 million people in uniform, 2 million of them in France. To say we
cannot add 10,000 trained Border Patrol agents and get them trained in
a prompt period of time is not credible. There has been a lack of will
to see this occur. Who is to say if we pass this legislation we will
have a renewed will in the future? The American people have a right.
We had a hearing on Monday in the Judiciary Committee. It dealt with
the problem of the appeals being filed by people who object to being
returned to their country. Since 2001, 4 years, we have had a 600-
percent increase in appeals to the Federal court, court of appeals. You
can legitimately appeal a determination you are in the country
illegally, but a sixfold increase in 4 years? What has that resulted
in? It has resulted in a 27-month delay before your case is heard.
What does this tell an immigration lawyer who is meeting with a
person who has been apprehended and who has an appeal pending about
being deported and the guy or the woman does not want to leave the
country and says, if you appeal, even if it is frivolous, it will be 27
months before anyone ever reads it or makes a decision. That is why we
are having this surge. That system is broken.
Senator Specter, Judiciary Committee chairman, had legislation in his
bill in the Judiciary Committee to help fix it--not completely, I
didn't think--that made a substantial step toward fixing this broken
system. They offered an amendment in committee to strip that language
and it passed. So not only did we not improve the bill and have not
improved the bill with regard to fixing the broken system, but we
stripped language that would have made a good step forward in fixing.
What does that say about the intent of the Members of this Congress
to actually see the immigration law be enforced?
I repeat once again, our nation is a nation of immigrants. We believe
in immigration. We have been enriched by immigration. But our Nation is
a sovereign nation and it has a right to decide how many people come
and what kind of skill sets they bring. Once it makes that decision, it
should create a
[[Page S2871]]
legal system that will make sure that occurs. We have not done that.
As a result, in 1986 we provided amnesty, which no one disputes. Not
Senator Leahy, not Senator Reid. We gave amnesty in 1986, thinking we
could fix it once and for all. And 20 years later we end up with not 3
million people here illegally but at least 11 million people here
illegally and no enforcement mechanism close to being in place that
would actually work. I encourage my colleagues to think carefully. We
can fix our border enforcement. We can increase the number of people
who come here illegally. We can tighten up the workforce workplace very
easily. We can make this system work.
As we tighten up the border, we eliminate the magnet of the
workplace, we can reach that magic tipping point where all of a sudden
the message is going out around the world that if you want to come to
America, the border is closed. You better wait in line and file your
application and come lawfully because if you come unlawfully, it won't
work. Then we will have a massive flip. We will not see so many bed
spaces. We may not even need as many Border Patrol agents as we have
today. But that message is not out there. In fact, the opposite is out
there. If we pass this bill, it will be business as usual. We should
not do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Washington.
Port Security
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to report on some of the
progress we have made in our effort to secure our Nation's ports and
our cargo container system.
This morning, I testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs about the GreenLane Maritime Cargo
Security Act which I introduced last year with Senators Collins,
Coleman, and Lieberman. That critical and effective bill is on the fast
track both in the House and in the Senate.
While that hearing was starting, we received another urgent reminder
of why we need to improve our cargo security in this Nation. This
morning, this very morning at the Port of Seattle, 21 Chinese nationals
were discovered. They had been smuggled into the United States in a
cargo container. That incident is a stark remainder that we today are
still not doing enough to keep our cargo container system secure. This
appears to have been a case of human smuggling, but that cargo
container could have been filled with anything from a dirty bomb to a
cell of terrorists. Today our country is vulnerable to a terrorist
attack. Time is not on our side.
I will spend a few minutes this afternoon outlining the threat and
explaining how our legislation helps. By using cargo containers,
terrorists can deliver a one-two punch to our country. The first punch
would create an untold number of American casualties. The second punch
would bring our economy to a halt.
Cargo containers carry the building blocks of our economy, but they
can also carry the deadly tools of a terror attack. Today we are not
doing enough to keep America safe.
In the Senate it can feel as though the dangers at our ports are
millions of miles away, but in recent years some in our Government have
said they could never have imagined the devastation caused by recent
disasters.
Let me make this crystal clear. On March 21, 2 weeks ago, a container
ship called the Hyundai Fortune was traveling off the coast of Yemen
when an explosion occurred in the rear of that ship. Here is a photo of
what happened next. About 90 containers were blown off the side of the
ship, creating a debris field 5 miles long. Thankfully, there were few
fatalities and the crew was rescued. They are still investigating the
cause. It does not appear at this time to be terrorist related.
Imagine this same burning ship sitting a few feet from our shores in
New York, or Puget Sound, off the coast of Los Angeles, Charleston,
Miami, Portland, Delaware Bay, or the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine we are
not just dealing with a conventional explosion but we are dealing with
a dirty bomb that has exploded on America's shore. Let me walk through
what would happen next.
First, there would be an immediate loss of life. Many of our ports
are located in or near major cities. If there was a nuclear device
exploded at a major port, up to a million people could be killed. If
this was a chemical weapon exploding in Seattle, the chemical plume
could contaminate our rail system, Interstate 5, Sea-Tac Airport, not
to mention our entire downtown business and residential areas. At the
port there would immediately be a lot of confusion. People would try to
contain the fire. But it is unclear today who, if anyone, would be in
charge.
Then, when word spreads that it is a dirty bomb, panic is likely to
set in and there would be chaos as first responders try to react and
people who live in the area try to flee.
Next, our Government would shut down every port in America to make
sure there were not any other bombs or any other containers in any one
of our cities. That shutdown would be the equivalent of driving our
economy right into a brick wall and it could even spark a global
recession. Day by day we would be feeling the painful economic impact
of such an attack. American factories would not be able to get the
supplies they needed. They would have to shut their doors and lay off
workers. Stores across our country would not be able to get the
products they need to stock their shelves.
In 2002, we saw what a closure of just a few ports on the west coast
could do. It could cost our economy about $1 billion a day. Now,
imagine if we shut down all of our ports. One study concluded that if
U.S. ports were shut down for just 12 days, it would cost $58 billion.
Next, we would soon realize we have no plan for resuming trade after
an attack--no protocol for what would be searched, what would be
allowed in, or even who would be in charge. There would be a mad
scramble to create a new system in a crisis atmosphere.
Eventually, we would begin the slow process of manually inspecting
all the cargo that is waiting to enter the U.S. ports. One report has
found it could take as long as 4 months to get it all inspected and
moving again.
Finally, we would have to set up a new regime for port security. I
can bet you that any new rushed plan would not balance strong security
with efficient trade.
The scenario I just outlined could happen tomorrow. We are not
prepared. Nearly 5 years after September 11, we still have not closed a
major loophole that threatens our lives and our economy. Time is not on
our side. We must act.
I approach this as someone who understands the importance of both
improving security and maintaining the flow of commerce. My home State
of Washington is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. We know
what is at stake if there were an incident at one of our ports. That is
why I wrote and funded Operation Safe Commerce, to help us find where
we are vulnerable and to evaluate the best security practices. It is
why I have worked to boost funding for the Coast Guard and have fought
to keep the Port Security Grant Program from being eliminated year
after year.
Right after 9/11, I started talking with security and trade experts
to find out what we need to be doing to both improve security and to
keep our commerce flowing. Ten months ago, I sought out Senator Collins
as a partner in this effort. I approached Senator Collins because I
knew she cared about this issue. I knew she had done a lot of work on
it already, and I knew she was someone who would get things done. Since
that day, we have worked hand in hand to develop a bill and move it
forward. I am very grateful to Senator Lieberman and Senator Coleman
for their tremendous work on this issue as well.
The GreenLane Act, which we had a hearing on this morning, recognizes
two facts: We must protect our country and we must keep our trade
flowing.
We know we are vulnerable. Terrorists have many opportunities to
introduce deadly cargo into a container. It could be tampered with any
time from when it leaves a foreign factory overseas to when it arrives
at a consolidation warehouse and moves to a foreign port. It could be
tampered with while it is en route to the United States.
There are several dangers. I outlined what would happen if terrorists
exploded a container in one of our ports.
[[Page S2872]]
But they could as easily use cargo containers to transport weapons or
personnel into the United States to launch an attack anywhere on
American soil.
The programs we have in place today are totally inadequate. Last May,
thanks to the insistence of Senators Collins and Coleman, the
Government Accountability Office found that C-TPAT was not checking to
see if companies were doing what they promised in their security plans.
Even when U.S. Customs inspectors do find something suspicious at a
foreign port, they cannot today force that container to be inspected.
So we have a clear and deadly threat. We know current programs are
inadequate. The question is, what are we going to do about it? We could
manually inspect every container, but that would cripple our economy.
The real challenge here is to make trade more secure without slowing
it to a crawl. That is why Senators Collins, Coleman, Lieberman, and I
have been working with the stakeholders and experts to strike the right
balance. The result is the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act. That
bill provides a comprehensive blueprint for how we can improve security
while we keep trade efficient.
At its very heart, this challenge is about keeping the good things
about trade--speed and efficiency--without being vulnerable to the bad
things about trade--the potential for terrorists to use our engines of
commerce.
Our bill does five things.
First, it creates tough, new standards for all cargo. Today we do not
have any standards for cargo security.
Secondly, it creates what we call the GreenLane option, which will
provide an even higher level of security. Companies that join it have
to follow the higher standards of the GreenLane cargo. Their cargo
would be essentially tracked and monitored from the moment it leaves a
factory floor overseas until it reaches the United States. We will know
everywhere that cargo has been. We will know every person who has
touched it. And we will know if it has been tampered with. The
GreenLane essentially pushes our borders out by conducting inspections
overseas before cargo is ever loaded onto a ship bound for the United
States. We provide incentives for companies to use the highest
standards of GreenLane.
Third, our bill sets up a plan to resume trade quickly and safely, to
minimize the impact on our economy.
Fourth, our bill will secure our ports here at home by funding port
security grants at $400 million.
And, finally, our bill will hold DHS accountable for improving cargo
security. DHS is long overdue in establishing cargo security standards
and transportation worker credentials. We need to hold DHS accountable,
and our bill provides that infrastructure to ensure accountability and
coordination.
I thank all of our cosponsors and our partners. I especially thank
Senator Collins for her tremendous leadership. She chaired the hearing
this morning, and her expertise and her commitment were clear to
everyone in the hearing room.
I also thank Senator Coleman for his leadership and his work as
chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Senator
Coleman has helped expose our vulnerabilities and has worked to develop
solutions.
I also thank Senator Lieberman for his leadership and support. I
commend our cosponsors, including Senators Feinstein, Snowe, and
DeWine.
I would add, we are also beginning to see progress on the House side
with the SAFE Port Act. I thank Representatives Dan Lungren and Jane
Harman for their leadership on that side.
Today we have a choice in how we deal with cargo security challenges
facing us. But if we wait for a disaster, our choices are going to be
much starker. Let's make the changes now, on our terms, before there is
a deadly incident. Let us not wait until a terrorist incident strikes
again to protect our people and our economy.
Two months ago, the people of America woke up and spoke out when they
heard that a foreign government-owned company could be running our
ports. That sparked a critical debate. Now we need to set up a security
regime that will actually make us safer. Until we do so, none of us
should sleep well at night. A terrible image such as this one--a
burning container ship with a dirty bomb in one of America's harbors--
could be on our TV screens tomorrow. So this Congress must act today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to return to the issue before us
and which has been before the Senate for the last week and a half, and
to say it has been my pleasure to work on the issue of immigration
reform and border security ever since I have been in this Senate--a
little over 3 years now.
As a Senator from a border State, it will come as no surprise that I
have actually spent a fair amount of time along the border talking to
my constituents, as well as visiting Mexico and other countries that
are a source of a large number of immigrants who come to our country
seeking a better life.
I believe that experience has given me some insight into what the
challenges we have are when it comes to border security. Of course, we
have proposals before this body to deal with this issue of our porous
borders and the need to find some way to deal with the workforce
demands of this growing economy of ours.
We need comprehensive immigration reform. I have consistently called
for comprehensive reform because I believe we will not fix the broken
immigration system unless we address all aspects of the problem; that
is, border security; interior enforcement; worksite enforcement; and
the 12 million who are in our country without authorization, finding
some way to allow them to reenter our immigration system legally, and
to give them a second chance living in the country, not in the shadows
but out in the open, and enjoying the benefits and protection of our
laws.
This is, as we have all discovered, an exceedingly complex issue. And
no one--no one--has a monopoly on all wisdom or on suggestions for ways
to improve the system. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has one
amendment pending that I believe will improve the proposal on the floor
of the Senate, which is the bill produced by the Judiciary Committee.
He has sought a vote, and I have joined him in seeking a vote, on that
amendment to the bill that is on the floor. I have several other
amendments that have been filed that will also, in my opinion, improve
the work of the committee.
But we have been denied an opportunity to have those amendments
considered and voted on by the Senate because the Democratic leader has
simply refused to allow any amendment that he personally does not agree
with to get a vote. We have had three votes in the last week and a
half, relatively--I should say completely noncontroversial votes--but
the Democratic leader has refused to let the Senate vote on Senator
Kyl's amendment.
This is particularly troubling to me because it is one that I believe
the American people would wholeheartedly agree with, and that--whatever
we decide to do with regard to the 12 million people who are currently
living in our country in the shadows and outside the law--we ought to
make sure whatever we do does not include a blanket amnesty for 500,000
or so felons, individuals who have committed at least three
misdemeanors, and those who have had their day in court, who are under
final orders of deportation or who have agreed to voluntarily leave the
country once they have been caught in the country illegally.
Those individuals, either because they have had their day in court or
because they are, in fact, felons or people with criminal records,
ought not to get the benefits, whatever they may ultimately be, of the
amnesty that is proposed in the underlying bill.
This is especially troubling to me because, as I have said earlier,
if you look at what happened in 1986, with the Immigration Reform Act
that was passed then, Congress, in effect, told America you should
trust us to enforce the laws, but, of course, as we now know, that did
not happen. Indeed, when the amnesty was granted in 1986, some 3
million people stood to benefit from that amnesty.
I have demonstrated here on the floor that that amnesty, which we all
agree, in fact, meets that definition, was a complete and total
failure. The reason why it was a complete and total failure is because
the American people were,
[[Page S2873]]
in essence, told one thing and Congress did another.
I believe the American people will forgive an awful lot of mistakes,
but they will not forgive being fooled twice. The proposal that is on
the floor now, the committee bill that is being proposed, would, in
fact, be a repeat of what happened in 1986, except to the extent that
it is actually even worse because in 1986, in order to get the benefit
of the amnesty, you could not be a felon, you could not be a person
with at least three misdemeanors, but under this bill, as offered and
as voted out of the Judiciary Committee, you can. Thus, you can see the
importance of having a vote on this amendment, which we have been
denied, even though it was offered last Friday.
Now here we come up on the midweek, and we are going to have a recess
of Congress for the next 2 weeks after this Friday, and I am afraid
that because of the lack of movement and progress on this bill, there
are going to be some who are going to be blamed for our inability to
move forward. And I submit--I hate to say this, but I submit that the
blame lies on those who simply denied the greatest deliberative body on
the planet from the chance to actually consider and vote on amendments
to this bill.
This is not democracy. This is not what we are trying to export to
other countries that have known nothing other than the boot heel of a
tyrant. This is not our finest hour because what we are seeing is the
minority leader on the other side simply denying democracy in
action. It is intolerable and inexcusable.
It is clear to me that if we are unsuccessful in getting this bill
through the floor and passed and an opportunity for the process to
reconcile the differences between the Senate and the House version,
should we get a Senate version, the blame will lie at the feet of the
Democratic leader.
One of the things Congress promised the American people in 1986 was
there would actually be a fraud detection system as part of the amnesty
that was then granted to make sure it would actually be successful and
that we would not have to find ourselves in the condition we are in
today where at the time we had 3 million who benefited from the amnesty
and now today the potential number is 12 million. We know the potential
for amnesty is a huge magnet for those who come to this country in
violation of our immigration laws. I don't want to find the Senate, 5
or 10 or 20 years from now, saying: In 1986, it was 3 million who
wanted to benefit from amnesty. In 2006, it was 12 million. And 20
years from now we find the number is 24 million.
We know this is a national security problem. We know that we have, as
a sovereign nation, a right to protect our borders. We know there are
on average 2,300 people coming into our country each day. Each day the
Democratic leader denies us an opportunity to fix that problem, to
allow the process to go forward, we are seeing 2,300 more people come
into the country illegally. I hope and pray it is not a criminal, a
terrorist, someone who intends to do us harm but, indeed, it could well
be.
The Democratic leader supports a bill that would grant an automatic
path to citizenship for 12 million people who are in this country in
violation of our immigration laws, yet he won't allow a vote on an
amendment that would bar felons and repeated criminal offenders from
participating in the program. He argues that he likes the bill voted
out of the Judiciary Committee and doesn't believe that amendment will,
in fact, improve it. He certainly is entitled to his opinion, but he is
not entitled to obstruct the process. He is not entitled to dictate to
the Senate or the American people what this particular legislation will
look like.
I simply don't understand why this amendment, that would bar felons
and repeat offenders and which actually clarifies that they can't be
given whatever benefit will be conferred by this bill, would create any
controversy whatsoever. If the American people were polled or asked, do
you think we ought to bar convicted felons, do you think we ought to
bar repeat criminal offenders from the grant of amnesty, I think they
would say yes. If given an opportunity for a vote on the floor, this
body will say yes, because we are representative of the American
people. Yet we have been denied that chance for a vote.
There is simply a credibility gap with the American people on
immigration and border security. Congress needs to openly debate and
vote on amendments so there is transparency regarding who will receive
green cards and whether there are sufficient protections against fraud
that ran rampant during 1986, with the amnesty that was granted at that
time. As someone who has worked on this issue and devoted time to it, I
want nothing more than the opportunity to debate and vote on
amendments. I am interested, and I believe most Senators are actually
interested, in trying to find a solution to this problem. But we are
met with obstruction and a refusal to let the process move forward. It
is simply unacceptable.
We cannot debate and vote on amendments until there has been an
agreement on who will participate in the program and the extent to
which fraud can be detected and prevented. Yet the Democratic leader
does not believe it is necessary to secure the confidence of the
American people that Congress is not giving amnesty to felons or repeat
criminal offenders. Without public debate and votes with regard to the
foundation of this proposal, none of us will be able to return home and
defend the broader policy implications of this complex legislation.
The Kyl amendment has been pending since last Thursday. Not a single
Senator has voted to table that amendment. Yesterday we went through a
strange exercise where, in order to determine how we can obtain some
progress on this bill, there was actually a motion to table the Kyl
amendment that would bar felons and repeat criminal offenders. Every
single Senator who voted voted not to table the amendment. Ordinarily
that would indicate an agreement with the amendment. Yet we were not
given an opportunity to vote on the amendment. The amendment ordinarily
would be accepted by the manager of the bill or would be subject to a
voice vote and become part of the larger bill, but that didn't happen
because we, unfortunately, have some people in the process who are not
interested in finding solutions. They are not interested in allowing
the process to move forward but, rather, they are more interested in
trying to jam their solution down the throat of the rest of the Senate
and to deny the rest of us a chance to offer suggestions and to get
votes.
I don't like to lose any more than anyone else, but I am willing to
submit to this body amendments that I have and on which I wish to have
a vote. I hope to persuade my fellow Senators that these amendments are
actually an improvement over the bill that is before the Senate. But if
this body decides, 51 or more Senators decide, to vote against those
amendments, I am willing to accept that. That is democracy. That is
majority rule. But to simply defy majorities and the process and say,
if I don't like it, I am not going to allow anybody else to amend it,
is unacceptable. In an institution known as the world's greatest
deliberative body, it brings this body no honor to obstruct the process
and to try to jam this unacceptable bill down our throats.
The current committee bill disqualifies from the legalization program
any alien who is ineligible for a visa. The Kyl-Cornyn amendment would
clarify that by saying any alien who is ineligible for a visa or who
has been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors would be
ineligible from the legalization program.
There are certain crimes, including felonies, that do not disqualify
an alien for a visa. This amendment, therefore, ensures that no felon
or repeat criminal offender will obtain an automatic path to a green
card and permanent residence in the United States.
This amendment is exactly the same text that was in the 1986 amnesty.
In other words, the very amendment Senator Kyl and I have offered to
exclude felons and three-time misdemeanants was part of the 1986
amnesty. So the proposal on the floor is even weaker than the amnesty
granted in 1986.
All we are trying to do is to bring it on a par with that amnesty of
1986. Crimes that do not automatically disqualify an alien for a visa
and would not, therefore, be covered by the Judiciary Committee bill
that is on the floor include assault and battery, manslaughter,
kidnapping, weapons possession--for example, possession of a
[[Page S2874]]
sawed-off shotgun--contributing to the delinquency of a minor,
burglary, including possession of tools to commit burglary, malicious
destruction of property, possession of stolen property, alien
smuggling, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, and
money laundering. Unless we are able to get a vote on the amendment
that is now pending that Senator Kyl and I have offered to exclude
felons and three-time misdemeanants, the proposal this body is asked to
accept would give amnesty to people who have engaged in alien
smuggling, manslaughter, kidnapping, or illegal possession of a sawed-
off shotgun.
The American people will forgive a lot, but they won't be fooled
again. And they won't forgive us if a minority of this body tries to
jam down the throats of the rest of the Senate provisions which would
allow the entry of these individuals into the United States and would
confer a blanket amnesty and a path to a green card and legal permanent
residency in the United States. It simply defies common sense.
I have a number of additional amendments I intend to offer and intend
to ask for a vote on. I will not be satisfied--and I submit there are
other Senators who will not vote to close off debate--until we get a
chance to have these considered on the Senate floor. One amendment, No.
3310, addresses the confidentiality provisions. The Judiciary Committee
amendment that is on the floor contains provisions that would prohibit
the use of information furnished by an applicant to be used for any
purpose other than a determination on the application. While the
committee amendment would allow the information to be shared with law
enforcement entities upon their request, the information could not be
used by the Department of Homeland Security to investigate fraud in the
program.
It is also worth noting that these provisions almost word for word
were included in the 1986 amnesty but are missing from the proposal
that is now on the floor. These confidentiality provisions have been
cited by Government authorities as one reason why there is so much
fraud in our immigration system, particularly the amnesty that was
granted in 1986.
For example, the testimony of Paul Virtue, former Immigration and
Naturalization Service general counsel, in 1999 before the House
regarding fraud in the prior amnesty program:
There is no question that the provisions of [that 1986
amnesty] were subject to widespread abuse, especially the
Special Agricultural Worker program that granted agricultural
workers who had performed 90 days of qualifying agricultural
employment within a specific period temporary lawful status
that automatically converted to permanent lawful status after
one year.
Nearly 1.3 million applications were filed under [this
Special Agricultural Worker] status, about double the number
of foreign farm workers usually employed in the United States
in any given year.
Much of the fraud that occurred under the IRCA
--the 1986 amnesty bill--
is attributable to statutory limitations placed on [the
Immigration and Naturalization Service].
The confidentiality restrictions of law . . . prevented INS
from pursuing cases of possible fraud detected during the
application process. The agency was further thwarted by the
courts, which ruled that INS could not deny an application
simply because the supporting documentation was from a
claimed employer suspected or convicted of fraud.
Let me say that again. He said the confidentiality restrictions
contained in the underlying bill here that I want to amend thwarted the
INS from denying an application simply because the supporting
documentation was from an employer ``suspected or convicted of fraud.''
In 1986, just a few million amnesty applications were filed, but
under this bill, Congress is now considering an amnesty for 12 million
immigrants who are in this country in an unauthorized status. We need
to make sure we don't hamper the Immigration and Naturalization
Service's ability to detect fraud. Yet this amendment would repeat the
worst failures of that 1986 amnesty.
One other amendment I have filed and intend to call up, if we are
ever given a chance to have amendments and votes on this bill, is
amendment No. 3309.
The committee amendment pending on the floor, which I offer this
amendment to improve, would create safe harbors for illegal aliens who
have filed applications for conditional immigration status.
To be clear, these are not aliens who have yet established
eligibility, or have even gone through background and security checks.
They have simply filed an application with the Government, and their
application might be in a stack of 10 million other applications.
Under this committee amendment, the one pending on the floor, to be
clear, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to issue a
travel document and an employment authorization document to an alien
before the agency has even determined eligibility under the program.
Travel documents are as important as weapons. Yet this section would
require the Department of Homeland Security to issue a travel document
to all illegal aliens simply because they have filed an application.
Under the underlying bill, an illegal alien may not be detained,
ordered deported, or removed while the alien has an application
pending. That means any illegal alien can simply file an application to
avoid deportation, and many will, of course, because it could take
several years, and probably will take several years, for the Department
of Homeland Security to process all applications.
Another disturbing point is there are also no carve-outs for criminal
aliens or other dangerous illegal aliens who would normally be subject
to mandatory detention. This underlying bill could be interpreted as
not allowing the Department of Homeland Security to detain any alien,
irrespective of how dangerous that alien is to society.
While the amendment does say an alien may be deported if the alien
``becomes ineligible,'' that is prospective and it means any illegal
alien could only be subject to deportation for criminal activity that
occurs after they filed their application.
We should be unwilling to create a significant loophole for criminal
illegal aliens who could avoid deportation or detention by simply
filing an application with the Government.
The underlying bill would require the Department of Homeland Security
to allow any alien apprehended before the program is operational, which
could be several years down the road, to apply for amnesty after the
program is up and running. If it does indeed take several years, that
means our immigration enforcement system, which right now apprehends
more than a million illegal aliens a year on the southern border, would
grind to a halt because any alien who is apprehended could simply file
an application or indicate an intent to file an application, and the
Government would be required to stop the removal process to allow that
to occur.
Mr. President, I know there are other Senators who wish to speak. I
am going to stop in a moment to give them that opportunity.
My point is there are many commonsense amendments that I believe
would garner the support of a majority of the Senate because they are
commonsense amendments. But as long as we are blocked from having those
amendments called up and considered and voted on, then there is no way
that Members of this body should vote to close off debate, vote for
cloture, because we will be producing a product that is simply unworthy
of the trust that has been placed in us by the American people. I
believe that no individual Senator and, indeed, no leader of either
party should be allowed to refuse to allow this process to move
forward. I think what is going to happen, because I think we are on a
path toward failure--at least between now and Friday--and what we are
going to see is the blame game.
There is going to be an attempt by those who have blocked this
process from going forward to point the finger of blame at those who
have voted against ending the debate because we cannot get a vote on
our amendments. I want to make it clear where the fault lies. That
blame should be squarely placed at the feet of the Democratic leader,
who has denied us an opportunity to have a vote on these commonsense
amendments--amendments that I believe the American people would agree
with and, if given an opportunity, I believe the Senate would agree
with.
[[Page S2875]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. We are on the bill.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened with some interest to my
colleague. I have to observe, though, he said that now we are going to
see the blame game, and he tells us where the fault lies. Well, that is
the first chapter of the blame game. I have not been out here with
respect to amendments. I have been chairing a hearing for a couple of
hours. But I say this to those who are talking about these amendments:
Those of us on this side of the aisle have certainly had a great deal
of experience with having our amendments not considered by the Senate.
Most recently, we had an amendment to a bill that would have dealt with
this issue of the Dubai company taking over American ports. The United
Arab Emirates' wholly-owned company, Dubai Ports World, was going to
take over the management of American shipping ports. We attempted to
offer an amendment, but it shut the Senate down because the majority
party didn't want an amendment such as that offered.
I have been trying for a couple of years to offer an amendment on the
reimportation of prescription drugs to drive down prescription drug
prices in this country. We have been thwarted on that. I could go on at
some great length. To the extent there is a complaint that some have
not been able to offer amendments, we understand that pretty well. We
have been in that position for a couple of years now, including my
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, who offered an amendment that
would have effectively prohibited our country from engaging in torture
with respect to those whom we have apprehended during wartime. That
amendment on the prohibition of torture shut down the consideration of
the Defense authorization bill last year month after month because the
majority didn't want to vote on the McCain amendment on torture. So
there is plenty of practice that has existed in this Chamber for
prohibiting amendments.
Again, I don't know what the approach has been this morning on the
floor because I have not been here. When I listen to discussions about
why can we not offer amendments, that is a cry that has been echoing in
this Chamber for a couple of years, much to the regret of those of us
who have had amendments to offer. It is a cry that has not been heard
by the majority party, which now jumps to the front of the line to
complain today.
I want to talk about this issue of the underlying bill, the
immigration bill and guest workers. I should also start by saying I
don't have any particular claim to understanding or expertise in this
area. I don't serve on the Judiciary Committee. I was not someone who
helped write the underlying bill. So I don't come to the floor to claim
to be an expert on the legislation. But I have spent a great deal of
time in the last year or so doing research in a range of areas for a
writing project dealing with American jobs and American workers, so I
claim to know something about that.
I claim to know, for example, that we have lost somewhere around 3
million-plus jobs in this country, most of them having moved to China
or Indonesia or Bangladesh or Sri Lanka--but most perhaps to China. We
have lost millions of jobs in this country in the last 3\1/2\ to 4
years. American workers, middle-income workers, and particularly
workers at the bottom of the economic ladder, have been devastated by
what has happened with this race toward globalization and the race by
the largest American corporations to produce where it is cheap, and
then sell their products in our marketplace. All of that is going on in
a very accelerated way.
Now we see, with the bill brought to the floor of the Senate, not
only do we have a strategy in this country of allowing the export of
good American jobs, now we will have a strategy of importing additional
low-wage jobs.
I will review some numbers, if I might. We have somewhere around 11
million to 12 million people who have come into this country illegally
and have stayed here. Some have been here a long while, and some
recently arrived.
Is it surprising that we have a lot of people who have come into this
country and stayed in violation of the law? No, it is not surprising to
me. We live in a big world, and a lot of people in this world don't
have the opportunities we have in this country. We have built something
very special in the United States. This is a country that provides
basic rights for people. It took us some while to perfect all that, but
having struggled through the issues of civil rights, workers' rights,
and women's rights, we have created an extraordinary country in which
workers can band together to collectively bargain and negotiate. We
have made decisions about the workplace and the right of a worker to
work in a safe workplace, child labor laws, minimum wages,
environmental protection, so you cannot produce a product and emit
poisonous chemicals into the air and water.
At the same time, we have created circumstances where businesses can
earn a profit, and a good one. This is an economy in which we have a
vast consumer base, with the most affluent consumers in the world. All
of that coming together created a country that is unparalleled on the
face of this planet. So if you go anywhere in the world, and
particularly impoverished areas in less developed countries, you will
find, in discussing this with those people, that many would say they
want to come to the United States of America. If you ask the question
``why,'' they will say it is because there is opportunity there, jobs
there, better income, better pay. That is what you find. I have found
that in many parts of the world, particularly in less developed
countries.
Think for a moment what would be the case if tomorrow the United
States said: Look, what we have built here is quite wonderful. We
understand it is unique and we want to share it with everyone. We have
no immigration quotas and anybody who wishes to come here can come.
Tomorrow, you are all welcome. Come and stay as long as you want.
What would be the consequences of that? We all know the consequences
of that. Those who are living in impoverished conditions from other
parts of the world will find their way to this country. We will be
importing poverty and we will have a massive number of people migrating
to the United States of America, because they would see this as an
opportunity. So we don't have a circumstance where we say that anybody
who wants to come tomorrow, come on, this is wide open, and stay as
long as you want. No. We have a series of quotas for immigrants. We
have immigration quotas by country, by category, and then we allow
people in based on these quotas.
I will describe exactly what we now face. We have 11 million to 12
million people who are here illegally. Last year, according to data I
have seen, 1.1 million additional people tried to cross the border from
Mexico into this country, but they were denied access. So 1.1 million
were kept out who wanted to come in. And 400,000 to 700,000 who wanted
in illegally got in illegally and are here. They came last year.
Another roughly 150,000 people--according to estimates I have seen--are
here on a temporary basis, H-2A or H-2B. Another 175,000 people came in
last year legally, as family members and quotas, just from Mexico. That
is what we face.
Now, at the same time we face these pressures of people wanting to
come into our country, particularly in most cases low-skilled and low-
wage workers, we face the largest trade deficits in the history of the
world. We face the wholesale movement of American jobs overseas. So we
see the two elements of the worst marriage of public policy; those are
the export of good American jobs to China and elsewhere, and the import
of low-wage workers to take the jobs of those in this country who are
at the bottom of the economic ladder. That is about corporations, big
companies, about their strategy, which has been embraced and given a
bear hug by this President and the Congress, controlled by the
President's party, standing for corporations and their interests.
Export American jobs, do another trade deal, cause more American jobs
to leave this country. Import cheap labor.
Why? They say: We want to import more cheap labor because we cannot
[[Page S2876]]
find Americans to do the work. So not only does the bill on the floor
of the Senate describe that we will create a legal status for 11
million to 12 million people who are here because, practically
speaking, nobody is going to round them up, or arrest them, or detain
them, or export them--we will create a status for those folks--but in
addition to that, it says let's also create a new guest worker program
of 400,000 people per year each year, with an escalator of being able
to increase that by 20 percent each year, which over 6 years could
amount to 4.7 million more people coming into this country who now live
outside of this country.
And so the bill provides a guest worker program saying we not only
want to deal with the legalization of those who are here illegally--
millions and millions and millions of them--we also want to add
potentially another 4.7 million. And, by the way, there is more than
that, but that is just the piece about which I am talking. On top of
that would be the provisions dealing with the new agricultural workers,
which was an amendment offered in the committee.
So where do these 4.7 million people go--the ones who are now living
outside of our country who come into our country legally--under this
legislation? They go to find jobs in competition with American workers.
Let's talk about low-skilled, low-wage American workers.
This Congress, as stingy as it has been for low-wage, low-skilled
workers, has decided for 8 years it will not increase the minimum wage.
Boy, it is Katy bar the door if it comes to helping somebody at the
top--tax breaks, unbelievable tax breaks for people at the top.
One of the world's richest people told me the other day when I was
talking with him that he pays a lower income tax rate than the
receptionist in his office. Why? Because the priority in this Chamber,
the priority in this Congress, the priority of the President, is to
drive down income tax rates for people who have capital gains. Who has
capital gains? The wealthy. They have most of the capital gains. The
wealthiest Americans are now paying the lowest tax rates, and this
Congress can't be quick enough to see if they can't offer another gift
to those at the top of the income scale.
I have nothing at all against those at the top of the income ladder.
God bless them, that is what America is about; it is about success. But
that does not justify saying that those who are the most successful
shall pay the lowest income tax rates in our country, and that is what
is happening. At the same time, Congress can't move quickly enough to
provide the lowest tax rates to those with the highest incomes. It says
to the people with the lowest incomes: We don't have any interest in
increasing the minimum wage. Sit there for 8 years, let inflation work
against your purchasing power; doesn't matter to us, we don't intend to
increase it. I think that is a terrible mistake, but that is the way
people at the bottom of the economic ladder have been treated in this
country now for many years.
Now they will be treated again to the prospect of saying: Let's have
some more people come in; let's not just deal with this 11 to 12
million, let's have more people come in on top of that because we can't
find Americans to do that work.
Why can't we find Americans to do that work? Let me read something
from Robert Samuelson, a Washington Post editorial. I fully agree with
this. He talks about:
It's a myth that the U.S. economy ``needs'' more poor
immigrants.
He is speaking especially of the guest worker provisions.
The illegal immigrants already here represent only about
4.9 percent of the current labor force, reports the Pew
Hispanic Center. In no major occupation are they a major-
ity. . . .
Hardly anyone thinks that most existing illegal immigrants
will leave--
Or be rounded up, arrested, or deported. I understand that. I think
all of us probably understand that. I think there should be some
enforcement of employer sanctions which we created but have not
enforced, which would make a big difference with respect to illegal
immigration. Here is what Samuelson said:
In 2004, the median hourly wage in Mexico was $1.86
compared to $9 for Mexicans working in the United States,
says Rakesh Kochhar of Pew. With high labor turnover in the
jobs they take, most new illegal immigrants can get work by
accepting wages slightly below prevailing levels. . . .
But what would happen if new illegal immigration stopped
and wasn't replaced by these guest workers?
That is an assumption. First, I don't buy the assumption that even if
this bill is passed with legalizing 11 to 12 million immigrants and
then allowing up to 4.7 million new people to come in who are now
living outside our country, I don't buy the notion that we have plugged
the border. I don't think we in any way inhibit illegal immigrants from
coming across the border. I know my colleagues are talking about
tightening the border and employer sanctions, and I will talk about
that in a minute. Employer sanctions was the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill.
That was a miserable failure, and I will explain why.
Again quoting Samuelson:
But what would happen if new illegal immigration stopped
and wasn't replaced by guest workers?
At some point higher wages would be going to American workers.
President Bush says that his guest worker program would
``match willing foreign workers with willing American
employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.''
But at some higher wage, there would be willing Americans.
As long as you can bring illegal immigrants, which is what has been
happening, into the country and they can work in the shadows and
employers can employ them for subminimum wage, I understand why
employers would not be employing American workers because they have a
steady stream of workers they can employ below the minimum wage.
Business organizations understandably support guest worker
programs. They like cheap labor and ignore the social
consequences.
That is what is at work here. What is at work here is the same
corporate interests who are exporting good American jobs are supporting
this bill because they cannot only export good American jobs on the
production side, but for those jobs you can't export, you can import
cheap labor. And that is what this is about: Export good jobs and
import cheap labor.
Let me talk for a moment about the debate over the Simpson-Mazzoli
bill two decades ago at a time when we were told we had a significant
immigration problem. That was a bill about border enforcement,
strengthening enforcement at the border, and also creating employer
sanctions.
The purpose of that bill was to say to employers: Don't you dare hire
illegal immigrants; if you are hiring workers who are illegal, you are
going to be in trouble, you are going to be slapped with a fine and
subject to enforcement actions. So I went back and read the 1985 and
1986 debate about Simpson-Mazzoli. I won't embarrass anybody by reading
it on the floor of the Senate. It was fascinating debate in the House
and the Senate. This was nirvana. This was the entire solution. It was
going to work like a charm because if you say to employers you dare not
hire people who are not here legally, you shut down the job, you shut
down the magnet, you shut down illegal immigration, end of story.
The fact is it didn't work at all. We have people in my State, the
State of North Dakota, today--in fact, I think there is a story in
today's paper about illegal immigrants working on some energy plants in
the middle of North Dakota, found to be illegal. The question is: Is
anybody going to take action against the employer? That would be a
Minnesota employer, by the way.
Most of our troubles come from Minnesota. We joke about that.
If a Minnesota employer hires illegal workers, and he is caught, are
there any problems for the Minnesota employer? No, no, not even a slap
on the wrist; just a pat on the back. Nobody is going to prosecute.
Nobody is going to fine them. Nobody is going to take enforcement
action. It is exactly why we are in the situation we are in today.
There are no sanctions for employers who hire illegal aliens.
I want to say very clearly that I don't in any way, because I oppose
this guest worker program that will bring 4.7 million people in to
compete with American workers at the bottom of the economic ladder, I
don't in any way want to diminish the dignity and self-
[[Page S2877]]
worth of immigrants. I don't mean that at all. I know in most cases
these are hard-working people, good families. Most of us have come from
immigrant families at some point in our lineage. Because someone would
come out and say, as I do today, that I don't support this proposal
offered by the President and offered on the floor of the Senate, saying
not only are we going to legalize or give legal status to 11 or 12
million people who came here illegally, but in addition to that, we are
going to allow 400,000 people a year with a 20-percent escalation
clause for the 4.7 million additional people potentially in 6 years to
come into this country, I am not going to support that. That is a
strategy for corporations to provide a ladder of cheap labor coming
into this country, displacing American workers.
We have a serious crisis in this country with respect to the plight
of America's workers. A lot of people who worked hard all their lives,
worked for companies and were proud of it are now discovering their
jobs are not safe, their jobs are not secure. In many cases, their jobs
are gone--gone to China, gone to Indonesia. Yes, they can find another
job. The statistics show they find another job at 20 percent less
income. In most cases, they have lost their pensions; they have lost
their health care. These are middle-income American workers, and the
low-income workers, the people at the bottom of the ladder, the people
who are high school dropouts, they work hard, they struggle, and now
what they have confronted in recent years is a corporate strategy of
being able to hire illegal immigrants at subpar wages, so the jobs are
not there for them.
We have a lot of people come to this floor and want to offer
amendments. They say they speak for this immigration bill, and they say
they speak for immigrants. Again, let me emphasize, I don't want to
diminish their concern for immigrant families. I don't want to do that.
That is not what I am about. But I want to come to this floor to say a
word on behalf of American workers because nobody is coming to this
floor to talk about American workers, American jobs, and what it means
to our country's future to have good jobs that pay well with retirement
benefits and health benefits.
The current strategy we are employing in this country today, a
strategy embraced by this President and this Congress, a corporate
strategy that says let us export good jobs and import cheap labor, that
is a strategy that undermines our economy.
I am interested in the long-term economic health of this country. We
have a lot of kids who will grow up in this country, American kids, who
want opportunity. Every single set of parents wants to leave a country
that is better for their children. They want to leave a country that
provides more opportunities for their children, and that is simply not
the case these days, regrettably. It is because we have an economic
strategy that is off track, and we need to put it on track. I have
ideas about how to do that. Others do as well. But one of those ideas
would not include suggesting that we ought to displace American workers
with 4.7 million additional immigrant workers who now live outside of
our country but who will come into our country to assume low-wage jobs
and displace jobs for low-wage American workers. That would not be
included in my suggestion of how to fix what is wrong in our country.
There is so much to say about this subject. I know there is great
passion. I have heard it from all of the groups. I have used a lot of
statistics. This is not, after all, about statistics or data. It is
about hopes and dreams and aspirations. It is about human misery. It is
about living in the shadows. It is about all of those things. So I
understand the passion that exists on the floor of this Senate about
this matter. But I also, as one Member of this body, lament that there
seems to be so little effort and so little activity on this floor about
the passions and the hopes and the dreams and the inspiration American
workers have about their future.
I have indicated previously, I know we have this global economy and I
know part of that global economy plays a role in this immigration
debate. People say you are a hopeless xenophobe who doesn't get it. We
all see over the horizon, and you somehow are nearsighted. My sense is
that we as a country will have our better days ahead of us if we adopt
public policy which is thoughtful and, yes, which has as a self-
interest the long-term economic well-being of our country.
But this global economy has marched and now galloped forward without
adequate rules with respect to jobs and income and opportunity in this
country, and too few people seem to care about the diminished
circumstances facing most American families and most American workers.
That, too, should play a central role in this discussion. That, too,
should be a part of the consideration here in the Senate. Regrettably,
it has not been. My hope is that perhaps in the next 48 hours it will
be, finally.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAFEE. 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. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority
leader be recognized at 3:15 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DAYTON. 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. DAYTON. Mr. President, I take offense at the characterizations of
the Democratic leader about obstructing this legislation, particularly
from those from southern border States who, in addition to the
culpability of the Federal Government, should take the blame for some
of the failures of these last few years that have perpetrated these 11
million, 12 million illegal immigrants upon the United States. I
respect the comments of the Senator from North Dakota, putting those
responsibilities, some of them, on the businesses of Minnesota, but I
must say that the businesses of Minnesota and perhaps other Northern
States have, to their credit, resisted the imposition of workers from
other countries upon themselves--again, to their credit. It is from the
States of southern borders, those businesses which have allowed this
illegal immigration to go unchecked and which have, I believe to their
discredit, employed these individuals.
It surprises me--in fact, I would call it the rank hypocrisy of those
who have stood here today representing these States whose businesses
have allowed these illegal immigrants to be employed, who have
benefited and profited from those employments, and who now are suddenly
trying to take aggressive action to impose these sanctions upon all
businesses. I believe strongly that Minnesota businesses and others in
Northern States have been forced to accept illegal immigrants because
of the failure of States on the southern border to stand up and to
protect their borders, in addition to the Federal Government. I deeply
object to those who are claiming that somehow that is the failure of
Northern States such as Minnesota.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside and that my amendment No. 3232 be called
up.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am disappointed that my colleagues
across the aisle will not let those of us who have good faith
amendments to call them up, debate them, and have a vote on them. This
is most troubling
[[Page S2878]]
because, while I disagree with many of the provisions in the bill, the
border security provisions are absolutely critical. The majority of
Americans consider border security to be one of the most important
priorities considered by Congress. In holding up the amendment process,
the Democrats are holding up the chance to move forward on these
critical border security issues. This legislation is too important to
fall victim to politics as usual.
As I said, I strongly disagree with this legislation in its current
form. I think the provisions relative to agriculture are not in the
best interests of farmers and agribusiness people. I can't tell you how
many phone calls and letters and emails I have received from my
constituents in Georgia as well as from farmers across the Nation
voicing their objection to many pieces of the Judiciary Committee bill
and encouraging me in my efforts to make some important changes.
So I was astounded to hear the minority leader yesterday suggest that
the Judiciary Committee's bill is good enough for him and therefore
should be accepted whole hog by the Senate. That is not the way the
Senate works. This body is based on the concept of debate. To suggest
that this legislation should reflect the will of the 18 members of
Judiciary Committee and ignore the will of the full Senate is to
belittle the enormous implications that will result from whatever
legislation the Senate passes.
I recognize that a number of pending amendments are going to require
the Senate to make some difficult votes. But we cannot try to avoid
these votes for political expediency. The American people deserve to
know where their Senators stand on these critical issues. And every
Senator has the right to try to shape this legislation.
The folks on the other side of the aisle need to stop playing
politics as usual--which is obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. This bill is
too important and their antics are going to prevent us from having a
bill that actually means something and isn't just a repeat of the past.
Georgians and the American people deserve more than politics as usual--
they deserve a thoughtful and thorough debate.
Even though I am not allowed to offer my amendment at this time, I
would like to take a few moments to speak about it. And at this point I
would like to ask unanimous consent that Senator Brownback be added as
a cosponsor to amendment No. 3232.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the Judiciary substitute bill mandates
that the minimum wage that must be paid to workers admitted under the
H-2A program shall be the greater of: the applicable state minimum
wage, the prevailing wage, or the adverse effect wage rate, often
referred to as the AEWR. In almost every case in every State, the AEWR
is significantly higher than the local prevailing wage. Interestingly
enough, the U.S. Department of Labor does not determine this AEWR. AEWR
wages are based solely on a U.S. Department of Agriculture's National
Agriculture Statistics Service quarterly survey--a survey that has been
published by the Department of Agriculture for decades; a survey that
was never intended for the purpose for which the Department of Labor
utilizes the collected data.
The AEWR reflects the average wage for disparate field and livestock
work over a multistate area. Packing house work--an occupation filled
by a large number of H2-A workers--is not surveyed. The NASS survey
result is the average of all agricultural wages, including the wages
that are paid to workers whose higher production levels entitle them to
additional incentives or piecework pay. The U.S. Department of Labor
then uses this average wage without regard for differences in
occupations, skills and seasonality by turning that average into a
minimum guaranteed wage for purposes of the AEWR.
To put this in terms my colleagues can understand, this would be like
if you took a survey of all congressional salaries, from Senators and
Congressmen to staff assistants, and then took the average of those
salaries and mandated that the average wage must be the minimum amount
paid to any congressional staffer.
Agricultural employers who use the H-2A program to avoid breaking the
law by hiring legal workers are put at a distinct competitive
disadvantage when compared to growers who use the available
undocumented workforce. In fact, this competitive disadvantage caused
by the additional expense of using H-2A is a major factor in the
agricultural industry's increasing dependency on an illegal workforce.
Those employers who have been utilizing an illegal workforce have not
been paying those illegal workers anywhere near the adverse effect wage
rate. Most troubling to me is that in the Judiciary Committee's bill,
once agricultural employers transition those illegal workers to blue
card workers, there is still no mandated wage floor for them!
Therefore, H-2A growers will continue to experience unfair competition
if the AEWR is not replaced with local prevailing wages.
I would also like to point out that the wages required of employers
of workers admitted under every other temporary, non-immigrant visa
category is a local prevailing wage rate determined by the U.S.
Department of Labor through specific occupational surveys by the
various states.
I believe this should be the case for the H-2A program as well.
Moving from an Adverse Effect Wage Rate requirement to a prevailing
wage would allow the use of a more localized, occupation-specific,
competitive wage when growers access legal workers through the H-2A
program. This would naturally raise wages for some farm workers and
better reflect the economic realities of the area in which the work is
performed and the type of work being performed. It would also encourage
agricultural employers to participate in a program designed to protect
and identify the workers on our Nation's farms.
I urge you to support the amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. 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. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I will sound, unfortunately,
like a broken record for the next 15 minutes or so.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will object to an amendment being called up at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has been recognized.
The quorum call has been lifted. No other unanimous consent request has
been made.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. It is important to stress again and again we
must focus on border security first.
When I first announced and then introduced my border security bill
last fall along with my colleagues, Senator Sessions and Senator
Coburn, people across America were talking about securing our borders
but there wasn't any action.
No bill in Congress was moving because most of the efforts tried to
tackle everything and ended up doing nothing.
I proposed changing the way we address immigration reform and
introduced a bipartisan bill that focuses on border security first.
Until we secure our borders, the U.S. will never be able to control
the deeper problems of illegal immigration. I repeat: without securing
our borders first, the U.S. will never be able to deal with its illegal
immigration problems.
That is why, I, along with my colleagues Senator Sessions, Senator
Byrd, and Senator Vitter are offering our bipartisan border security
bill as a complete substitute to the bill that Senator Specter and the
Judiciary Committee have offered.
We all have great respect for Senator Specter and the hard work by
the Judiciary Committee to complete the bill they reported out last
week under difficult time constraints. It is a good thing that we have
so many people working together trying to find solutions to our illegal
immigration problem. But it is important that those efforts are not
lost because we tried to tackle everything and accomplished nothing.
Those efforts are why we must focus on border security.
My colleagues and I are convinced that there is only one way we are
going
[[Page S2879]]
to find consensus and see real action this year, and that is if we take
the very important step of securing our borders first.
Our proposal would add 3,000 border patrol agents per year for 5
years and enhance border security technology.
It also adds:
1,000 new investigative personnel dedicated to stopping immigrant
smuggling;
10,000 new Department of Homeland Security investigators dedicated to
worksite enforcement; and
15,000 immigration enforcement agents dedicated to fraud detection.
At the same time, we give employers the tools they need to confirm
the status of prospective employees to ensure that they are following
the law.
If the companies have completed the verification process they will be
protected in their hiring decisions. And the companies will not need to
be concerned with verifying documents nor will they have to be in the
business of making sure that documents handed to them are not
fraudulent. However, if a company ignores this process and hires
illegal immigrants anyway, our proposal enhances the penalties for
breaking the law.
We believe that this is an important component for securing our
borders and addressing the problem of illegal immigration. By removing
the motivation behind most illegal immigration--securing employment
through fraudulent documents or unscrupulous employers--we can take
another important step towards resolving our illegal immigration
problems.
In addition to aiding employers identifying illegal immigrants, this
proposal also helps border security agents to stop immigrant smuggling,
human trafficking, and other border offenses. This will ensure that
gangs, organized crime, and individuals looking to exploit illegal
immigrants for profit are prosecuted and prevented from putting
immigrants in harms way.
Currently, these offenders are difficult to prosecute and are soon
back committing new offenses of the same old crime.
I understand there has been some confusion about who this provision
of the Border Security First proposal targets. I would like to set the
record straight and make absolutely clear that this section is not
aimed at prosecuting any religious or humanitarian groups that assist
individuals in need. These people are not prosecuted now nor will they
be in the future--nor should they be.
Instead, we need to stop the criminals who are smuggling people for
financial gain and commercial profit. They are the ones hurting
immigrants, not our religious and nonprofit groups.
I would also like to clarify for the record that this proposal does
not make illegal immigrants in this country felons. It merely seeks to
secure our borders as a first step towards resolving our illegal
immigration problems.
I continue to push for border security first because I believe that
it is our responsibility to work together to find a solution to this
problem confronting our Nation. Our fellow Americans expect no less
from us.
I continue to push for border security first because it makes common
sense.
We all agree that the borders need to be secured.
And with a problem as pressing as illegal immigration, it is
important that we work to build a consensus and that we concentrate our
efforts on getting something accomplished that moves us along the path
towards resolving this problem.
The disagreements we face all stem from the additional problem of
what to do with the illegal immigrants already here. I am for securing
the border first--and then developing a plan for the illegal immigrants
already here. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity to begin
solving this problem because we concentrated on the things we disagree
about rather than working to make sure we accomplished what we all
agree needs to be accomplished first.
Unless we secure our borders first, the problem will only continue to
worsen and the number of illegal immigrants we need to address will be
larger than it is now.
Unless we secure our borders first, the U.S. will never have a firm
grasp on the interior problems we have as a result of illegal
immigration.
Unless we secure our borders first, we will never be able to
adequately address the remaining issues that illegal immigration
present.
Unless we secure our borders first, we will miss this opportunity to
begin solving a problem and we will have failed to properly do our jobs
for the American people.
By implementing tough new changes to secure our borders we can take
an important first step toward addressing illegal immigration.
Today as we continue this debate and we continue to think about the
bill that is before the Senate, we need to redirect our attention and
put border security first so we can then go on. The ``do everything''
bill that is before the Senate today will end up doing nothing. The
reason is if it is passed by this Senate and goes to the conference
committee, it cannot be squared with the House version that has already
been passed. It will be easier to square the circle than it will be to
bring these two disparate bills together, and that is why we need to do
something to secure our borders first.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I come to the floor, and I am broadly
supported by our caucus, because we come to a moment in time where
people are looking at the Senate, America is looking at the Senate, and
asking: Why? Why are we at a point where we are addressed with a
problem that is not insurmountable--seemingly insurmountable at times
but a problem which can be addressed, which addresses the issues that
are so fundamental to our country--issues of national security, issues
of fairness, issues of compassion--challenges that if not addressed
will continue to grow, thereby threatening the security of the American
people, who are watching.
Republicans are here--we see it right here on the floor right now--
and we have been here since last Wednesday on a bill doing what the
American people expect; that is, identifying a problem, discussing a
problem, putting together amendments in order to take a bill to the
floor and, therefore, improve a bill. And yet we are being denied that
basic opportunity.
Right this very moment, we are here to address a national problem, a
problem that is pressing. It impacts every American listening. I
mentioned the word ``fairness'' because it is basically a matter of
fairness--of fairness to a group of people, the 12 million undocumented
people here in this country today, who, yes, came here illegally, but
who are listening and watching right now and asking that question, Will
my plight be addressed and addressed appropriately?
It has to do with fairness to the Senate, where each of us came here
probably for different reasons, but to participate in governing and
moving America forward to a future that we know will be safer, that
will be healthier, that will be more prosperous; and fairness for our
constituents, who are scratching their heads right now, at first maybe
saying, well, there it is, the Senate, once again, not able to address
problems, but then, after a moment, saying that is wrong; those are the
people who are sent to Washington to represent us, to address the
toughest, most fundamental problems that are out there today, and that
is our secureness, our security, to address issues that affect internal
enforcement of the laws of the land, a nation of laws, and, yes, a
nation that has captured the richness of our immigrants.
Twelve million people are living in the shadows. I would argue that
today our Democratic colleagues are living in the shadows by not
standing up and addressing the problems, the challenges, the
opportunities that have been identified. The minority refuses to vote.
They refuse to give us simple votes, up-or-down votes, on issues we can
debate on the floor, that we are ready to debate.
The other side of the aisle is refusing to govern. That is why we
came to the Senate. They refuse to come to the
[[Page S2880]]
table to even attempt to address the problem. They are willing to let
these 12 million people continue to struggle. They are willing to let
our national security, by not addressing the problem, be compromised.
They are willing to let our health care, our education, and our
immigration system be crippled.
I come to the floor to make the statement that the immigration system
is broken, and yet the Democrats today do not have the courage to
address the problem, to fix the problem. They show a lack of courage, I
think, conviction, and leadership to fix the problem. You fix the
problem by doing something, not coming with a solution and saying: This
is it; take it or leave it. It is to allow us to have an amendment
proposed, to debate that amendment, and then to vote on that amendment.
What happens, then, when we take an issue that is totally
nonpartisan--it is not a red State, blue State, liberal, conservative,
Democratic or Republican issue--and all of a sudden politics gets
injected into it? Thus I ask the other side of the aisle to please put
the politics aside and allow this body--100 individuals--to cast votes,
take up amendments and vote on them.
There have been a lot of media reports saying that caucuses are
fractured--our caucus is fractured and the Democratic caucus is
fractured. I think that in many ways can be overplayed, but it does
reflect the fact--not the fracturing but the diversity of ideas, good
ideas, that need to come to the floor and be debated in order to solve
these huge problems that are out there: on the border, first and
foremost; interior enforcement at the workplace; the temporary workers,
the 12 million people.
We have ideas right here. There are 50 different people with a bunch
of ideas, yet not one is being allowed to come to the floor, lay down
their amendment, have the manager take up the amendment, debate it, and
then vote on that amendment. And we are not going to all agree. That is
what the Senate is all about: to debate, to deliberate, to discuss, and
then to act.
I think our side has shown our courage to come forth and address a
problem. There are not clear-cut answers and not answers everybody is
going to agree with. But by working together--not Republican and
Democrat, but by working together, each of us operating with our own
convictions, allowed to vote with our own convictions, we can move this
process forward.
It comes back to fairness again. It is the fairness for each of us.
It is the fairness for the 12 million. It is the fairness for the
immigrants who want to come to this country, yes, legally so they will
have a clearly defined system.
I want to thank the members of my caucus for coming to the table. It
is a tough issue, the whole immigration issue. It is a broken system.
It demands to be fixed. They are ready to fix it, but right now the
other side of the aisle is not allowing us. Without fail, all of our
people have come forward with good ideas. We do not all agree with each
other--but to work together in a constructive way, bringing out the
very best of this body, when, I would argue, over the last 24 hours we
have seen the absolute worst.
I do believe the American people deserve better. And again, as I
opened, I said the American people have to be scratching their head.
Now I used to say this is another insufferable attempt of the other
side to block, to obstruct, to postpone, to delay, but now I think it
is beyond that.
We know the American people care passionately about this issue. It is
time for us to come together--not Republican versus Democrat--and allow
these amendments, in an orderly way, determined by the managers, to be
debated and voted upon so we can move this country forward, where we
know if we act we will be safer, we will give hope where there is no
hope today, we will respond with compassion, because I have confidence
in the system itself.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader
yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my questions to the majority leader are
whether the conduct of the Democrats is consistent with the usual
practice of the Senate, which allows Senators to offer, at a minimum,
germane amendments to pending legislation, and whether the position
taken by the distinguished Democratic leader is consistent with the
practices and protocol of the Senate?
His approach was summarized in a news conference yesterday that I
spoke about on the Senate floor--I had a minor confrontation with the
Democratic leader yesterday--where a question was posed by a reporter.
Quote:
Senator Reid, the Republicans are saying that you are not
allowing amendments to be voted on on the floor. Is there a
reason for that?
And Senator Reid responded, and I quote:
We are happy to take a look at amendments that don't damage
the integrity of the bill, but if it is going to be, in the
estimation of the unified Democrats, an effort to denigrate
this bipartisan bill, then they won't have votes on those
amendments.
My question is, is it up to a Senator or a caucus or a party or the
Members on one side of the aisle to take a look at the amendments and
decide whether they damage the integrity of the bill and to set a
standard that if an amendment is going to be, in the estimation of the
unified Democrats, an effort to denigrate this bipartisan bill, then
they won't have a vote on that amendment? Or is it the practice and
protocol of the Senate to allow Senators to vote for amendments as
individual Senators see the situation in their own right?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in response to my colleague and the manager
of this bill, it is clear that by protocol, precedent--and I would even
take it back to something more basic than that--and simple fairness and
respect for individual Members, Members be allowed to come forward and
offer their amendments and then, yes, discuss it with the Democratic
leader, the Republican leader, and especially the managers of the bill.
But to think that the minority party can cherry-pick which amendments
will be considered and no other amendments will be considered is
totally outside of the realm of both practice, protocol and, again,
fairness of the body itself.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished majority leader for a very
poignant, accurate, conclusive response.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I just hope that my friends on the other
side of the aisle--and there isn't a single Senator over there I don't
consider a friend and have great respect for--I hope they remember this
exchange between the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the
majority leader today, as we wind down this session of this Congress. I
want them to remember this because you don't have to have a very long
memory to understand what has happened in the Senate with our inability
to offer amendments. The most recent that I can think of, of course,
was the Dubai Ports situation on lobbying. The next thing I can go back
and look at is the PATRIOT Act, where the distinguished majority leader
filled the tree.
There is no need--we went through this yesterday. There is no need to
do this. But the Senate, in the 200-plus years it has been in
existence--even though the rules are somewhat difficult to accept, they
are here. And they are here for a reason. Because over the generations
of the Senate, there is always the ability to have an endgame. There is
a way to proceed orderly on a piece of legislation. And what we should
do on this, if everyone is so upset with what is taking place here, is
in the morning we will have an opportunity to invoke cloture. All
germane amendments will be allowed, if they were filed before 1 o'clock
today. There would be an opportunity then to debate these amendments
and vote on them. So there is no more orderly way to proceed to a
matter than cloture.
I wish to switch a little bit here and talk about something that is
extremely personal to me. I have been a legislator for a long time. The
first job I had in public office was in 1964. I have been involved in
government for 42 years. I was a city attorney, served on county
boards, the State legislature, and other such opportunities that the
people of the State of Nevada have given me. I don't want this to be
true confessions,
[[Page S2881]]
but I want to relate to the Senate that the biggest mistake I ever
made, the largest error I ever made was 15 or 18 years ago, as a Member
of the U.S. Congress, when, with my chief of staff, my dear friend
Reynaldo Martinez--he and I played baseball together. He was a star on
that team. I wasn't. But we beat everybody. We were the California
Scholastic Federation champions when I was a sophomore in high school.
He was my chief of staff. He is retired, a wonderful man. He has
credentials in the Hispanic community. He has had a school named after
him in Nevada. He has a youth center named after him. He is a very
famous Nevadan and my dear friend.
A group of people came and talked to us and convinced us that the
thing to do would be to close the borders between Mexico and the United
States; in effect, stop people from coming across our borders to the
United States. This period of time for which I am so apologetic--to my
family, mostly--lasted about a week or two. I introduced legislation.
My little wife is 5 feet tall. We have been together for soon to be 50
years. As I said here on the floor a few days ago, her father was born
in Russia. He was run out of Russia. His name was Goldfarb, his family.
They were Jewish. My wife heard that I had done this. She does not
interfere with my legislation. Only when I ask her does she get
involved in what I am doing. I didn't ask her about this. She, in
effect, said: I can't believe that you have done it. But I had done it.
To compound this, I held a meeting a day or two after being
confronted by my wife, a meeting in Las Vegas. It was a townhall
meeting to explain this travesty that I called legislation. My friend,
Judge John Mendoza, was there, somebody who, when I lost my Senate race
in 1974 by 524 votes, spent all night with me consoling me, but he was
in that audience. Larry Luna, Larry Mason, Isabelle Pfeiffer, people I
had not talked to about this, in addition to my wife, pointed out the
errors of my way. I have done everything since that meeting in Las
Vegas, in conversation with my wife, to undo my embarrassment.
I have nothing against my friend, the junior Senator from Alabama,
for bringing up what I had said those many years ago today on the
Senate floor. I have no problem with that at all. But I do want to tell
him and the rest of my friends in the Senate, that is a low point of my
legislative career, the low point of my governmental career. That is
why I believe we need comprehensive immigration reform today. People in
America are counting on us to move forward with comprehensive
immigration reform. They recognize that this country's national
security depends on securing our borders and fixing our immigration
system. They all want us to do this, Democrats and Republicans, to come
together and do this.
I still believe that the bill before us is a compromise. I believe it
is a good bill. It is up to my Republican friends to decide what they
want to do. They can work with us to move forward and vote cloture and
have some amendments that are germane postcloture. My friends, the
majority, can move forward with a bill that will fix our borders and
reform the immigration system or continue to stonewall. It is in the
eyes of the beholder who is stonewalling. I think what we have here is
a compromise. We have a real bipartisan opportunity to fix our
immigration system. Thanks to the hard work of the Democrats and
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, we have a bill that will do it.
So I hope that tomorrow morning, an hour after we come into session,
that there will be a bipartisan vote to invoke cloture, move forward
with this legislation, look at those germane amendments, vote them up
or down, and move forward with the process.
I, first of all, want everyone in this Chamber to know that there is
no animosity between the two leaders. We have jobs to do. We do the
best we can to fulfill those responsibilities. But as far as the two of
us are concerned, there is no ill will toward me from Senator Frist. He
has never shown that on a personal basis. I have attempted not to do
that with him. I will say on one occasion I did, and he brought it to
my attention. I acknowledged that, and I understood what he was
critical of. It was constructive criticism, and I took it as that.
I hope we can move forward. There have been proposals made by both
sides. My friend's proposal on this side of the aisle was not
acceptable. My proposal to him was not acceptable. But it is only 4
o'clock. Maybe something will happen before tomorrow morning's cloture
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as I said in my remarks a few minutes ago,
the disappointing thing to me is the situation we are in, in that in
all likelihood, unless we have a radical departure in the next hour,
the course we are on is to leave here in a few days having accomplished
nothing for the American people. The American people expect more.
We all know that the institutions of government in today's world are
watched by the American people because we were elected on their behalf
to identify problems, to struggle and work through those problems
through a process that has worked well for a couple hundred years, and
that is debate and amendment. We have a bill on the floor that came out
of the Judiciary Committee, a process I am actually proud of.
It has been confusing to people, I know, but I basically said: There
is a problem out there that we know is there. It is getting worse. It
affects the safety and security of the American people, plus the
compassionate side, people dying crossing the borders, plus 12 million
people who are having to wake up every day in the shadows out of fear
that in some way somebody is going to come and touch them in a
devastating way or not being able to report a domestic violence
incident because it exposes them. That is wrong.
We have the opportunity--because of leadership, and working with the
Democratic leadership, we got a bill to the floor, knowing 3 to 4
months in advance that we would be here now spending time on it--to fix
the problem, to solve the problem. And maybe it is the surgical
personality in me that says, if somebody in the room has cancer, you
cut it out. You just don't sit there and talk to them and say: Come
back in a few weeks or a few months or a few years, because they die
from not acting and fixing it.
That may be too much my approach, but stepping back from that, I know
this is a process here whereby if we start now and take the first
amendment from last week, the Kyl amendment, which was introduced and
has been discussed and debated, and last night we voted not to table
it--why don't we take it and vote on it and go straight through, and
then we would have the opportunity to effect a bill. I think we can
improve the bill. I think it would get 60 votes for cloture, and then
we could have a bill that would solve the problems that are out there.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is well known that there are a number
of Senators who have been engaged in active negotiations and are trying
to come to an agreement so that we could get this very difficult and
challenging issue behind us. There are Senators Graham, Martinez,
Domenici, Brownback, Hagel, and Specter, who led the legislation
through the Judiciary Committee, and Senators Gregg, Obama, Salazar,
Durbin, and especially Senator Kennedy. We have all been involved in
negotiations and discussions morning, noon, and night, as have our
staffs, as well as various outside groups. We are always very close to
agreement. I cannot say we are going to reach agreement, but it is not
for lack of knowledge, expertise, or dedication in trying to solve this
issue.
Senator Frist has encouraged us. We have met with him constantly and
he has offered his encouragement as a leader and we are grateful for
that. We are close. If we can reach an agreement, I think it would have
60 votes in this body. I haven't seen an issue in recent years that has
so much emotion associated with it. Nor do I know of one that probably
defines the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and what kind of
a nation we are.
The occupant of the chair, Senator Martinez, and Senator Salazar
brought a perspective to this issue which is very valuable. Both have
added life experiences on this issue. So it is not for lack of
knowledge or expertise or talent, and we are very close.
[[Page S2882]]
But there has been a shadow on our discussions. The fact is the
Senate has not moved forward with debate and amendments and votes. The
Senate is supposed to do that. That is what this body is supposed to be
all about. Now for a week and a half we have not been able to have a
vote on a single issue. We should not be afraid to debate these issues
and to vote on them. That is what we are supposed to do. We don't have
to wait for cloture every time before we debate and have votes. Senator
Kyl and Senator Cornyn have devoted thousands of hours to this issue.
They deserve a vote on their proposal. That is the way the Senate is
supposed to function.
There are those on the other side who have amendments that probably
would be very tough votes for those of us on this side. We are here to
take tough votes. That is what we come here for--to take tough votes. I
could argue, as we do maybe too often, legitimately that this is one of
the greatest challenges we face in our time--securing our borders,
taking 11 million people out of the shadows who are exploited every
day, fulfilling the job requirements that we all know are necessary to
ensure our economic future.
I want to assure the Democratic leader that those of us on this side
follow the leadership of our elected leader. We cannot vote for cloture
when it is proposed by the other side. The majority rules. The majority
sets the agenda in the Senate. For there to be an expectation that
somehow we would vote for cloture as proposed by the Democratic
leader--I imagine if my friend from Nevada were in the majority, he
could take great exception to the Senator from Tennessee filing cloture
and then expecting the other side to follow that.
We have a short period of time. I hope as these negotiations
continue--and we are close, I must say. I think my friend from
Massachusetts would agree, although I must say he is very interesting
to negotiate with. But I also point out that his word is good.
I hope people will listen to the Senator from Florida, who is in the
chair. I hope people will listen to the Senator from Colorado, Mr.
Salazar, and others who can explain to us better than anyone how urgent
it is that we resolve this issue. Americans are unhappy with us, in
general. But this issue has aroused passion in a way that few of us
have ever seen across this country. In Los Angeles, Phoenix, Arizona,
and New York City, and around the Nation, it seems to me we owe every
American a resolution on this issue.
Can we please move forward with amendments, start voting, and then
come to a resolution of this issue. I thank both leaders for their
indulgence and my colleagues for their active involvement in this
issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sure it was an oversight by my friend
from Arizona in just mentioning Senator Salazar, but also Senator
Menendez has been involved in the things we have done over here, and he
is a great addition to our caucus.
My friend from Arizona, who has established his credentials as being
courageous as none of the rest of us have, except perhaps Senator
Inouye, said we should not be afraid to take votes. So my suggestion--I
made it yesterday and I make it today--is that there has been
significant debate on the Specter-Leahy substitute. It is now before
this body. We should not be afraid to vote on that. As I said, we are
willing to vote. We don't need to have cloture. We can have an up-or-
down vote on that right now. That is one alternative that could be
considered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I think our point has been made. If we are
going to address an issue that deserves to be addressed and that the
American people expect us to address, we have to change course here
from the last several days. It is going to require amendments and
debate and allowing amendments to come to the floor. There is no
comparable bill. The Medicare bill had 128 amendments; the highway bill
had 47; the Energy bill had 70. But to think we can make progress on a
bill flying through the Senate without the opportunity for debate and
amendment is unrealistic. It is outside of the realm of what the
American people expect and what our responsibilities are as Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I so appreciate that the majority
leader has called this to the Nation's attention because we have been
working on this bill for almost 2 weeks now. The majority of the body
has not had its say. The Judiciary Committee worked very hard on this
bill. However, it is a bill that I could not possibly invoke cloture on
before we have had a chance to have input and the opportunity to change
it in the direction that the full majority of this body--hopefully, a
resounding majority of the body--would support.
The House of Representatives passed a bill that probably not one
Member of the Senate would support. That is not going to be the final
position of Congress. The Senate is taking a different approach. The
Senate, in general, agrees that there should be a guest worker program.
It has been very difficult to come up with the right solution on how
our country handles the 12 million people who are here illegally--a
solution that is fair and equitable for the citizens of the United
States and ensures law and order on our borders. It would be wrong for
Congress to pass a bill which indicates border security is business as
usual, or that the laws of our country can be broken with no penalty
whatsoever. Most of us want to pass a guest worker program that allows
people to come back and forth legally into our country, help our
economy, earn their benefits and be able to keep them--not in the
underground, but aboveboard. Most of us want that.
Unfortunately, the bill before us does not provide the right
solution. Yet, we are sincere in our desire to amend it. That is what
our leader is trying to say. I think it is wrong for the Democratic
minority to hold up amendments and not allow those who have worked for
hours, days, weeks, and months on this bill, to offer alternatives,
hear debate, and start shaping a bill that would put our country in the
right direction, secure our borders, keep our friendship with Mexico--
our neighbor to the South, and treat people fairly.
Passing a bill that achieves these objectives is a goal I think we
can all reach, but not if we cannot have amendments and are forced to
vote on cloture. I could not possibly vote for cloture, nor could all
but one or two on our side. That is not bipartisan. It is not the
process we have followed in this Senate.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to let us proceed
with amendments. Don't waste the next 24 hours. Let Senator Kyl have
his chance to have his amendment voted on. Let others who have ideas
have their amendments voted on.
I think one area we have not significantly addressed, one I would
like to be able to talk about, is an alternative for people who do not
seek citizenship in America. There are many wonderful Mexican workers
in our country who want to remain citizens of Mexico, who intend to
stay with their families in Mexico, but who desire the economic
opportunities in America. Why would we not provide them an opportunity
to come out of the shadows, to work and earn their pay in the open, and
then go home? Why should they wait in a 10-year line for U.S.
citizenship, which they do not seek?
Clearly, we have not fully vetted this issue. The Judiciary Committee
worked hard to produce a bill, a bill which I do not support. Yet, they
certainly worked hard, did their homework, and were very thorough. We
need to have a chance to work on that bill with the rest of the Senate
because most of us are not on the Judiciary Committee. Immigration is
an issue that affects all of our States and our country as a whole. We
need to address it in a sincere, productive way that will come to the
right solution. The only way to do that is to allow the Senate to
debate and vote on amendments. If we can come to a consensus, and have
a 75-to-25 vote, or a 90-to-10 vote on a final bill, then we would have
produced the right solution. We will not be able to do that if we
invoke cloture before voting on amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am seeking recognition, standing on the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Chair heard the Senator from
Kansas first.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I tell my friend from Illinois that I
will be very brief.
[[Page S2883]]
I understand all of the discussion has been about cloture. It has
been about the process of the Senate. It has been about denying
Members--in this particular case, on our side--the ability to offer
amendments. Let me say that we are about to go on a 2-week recess
without doing anything about trying to secure our borders. We are doing
some things, but we are not doing the things we need to do. There are
32,200 reasons why we should move and why we should reach
accommodation, if we possibly can, to pass a good immigration reform
bill. That is 32,200 people who will be coming across our borders
during the 2 weeks we will be in recess. And 2,300 are coming across
per day as of today. There have been about 150 come across our borders
illegally while we have been speaking.
As a matter of fact, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, I know how this affects our national security. I know all
the talk has been about procedure and germaneness and allowing
amendments. But let me talk a minute about national security.
Mr. President, 1.2 million illegal aliens were apprehended as they
came across our borders last year. Two or three times that amount were
not apprehended. If you lived in Tucson, the number was about 439,000
who were apprehended. Two or three times that amount were not
apprehended. If you lived in Yuma, in California, that number was about
140,000 approximately, and in McAllen, TX, there were 135,000 in just 1
year.
Of the 1.2 million who were apprehended who came across illegally--I
am not talking about the ones who came across and were not
apprehended--165,000 were persons coming from countries other than
Mexico. Where did they come from? We are talking about the Middle East.
We are talking about Southeast Asia. We are talking about Eastern
Europe. We know because we have apprehended people from Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. We have actually apprehended people from
Iran, 10 of them, and Somalia and Venezuela.
I want to say something about these folks. Their goals may be to find
a job and be part of the American dream, but they may not be as well.
And truthfully, I think that is only a snapshot of the reality.
I think the intelligence community can tell you who we caught, but
they can't tell you who we haven't caught. So at 2,300 people coming
across the border who are illegal every day--every day that we argue or
that we don't argue it, that basically we don't have an opportunity to
consider the amendments and move this bill forward, national security
is being threatened.
I want Members to consider that and see if we can't work toward some
solution that will allow a series of amendments to be considered and
move on with this bill. Otherwise, in the next 2 weeks, I have to tell
my colleagues, the people of Kansas are going to look at me or, for
that matter, every Senator and say: What on Earth are you doing going
on recess for 2 weeks when you have 32,200 more people coming in, most
of whom are not vetted and some could be injurious to the national
security of the United States?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I asked my staff how many amendments have
been filed to this bill. The number is 228 amendments; 228 amendments
have been filed to this bill. If you follow the proceedings of the
Senate, you know there is no way on Earth we can consider 228
amendments and actually vote on this bill by the end of this week or
even by the end of next week. It is physically impossible. Decisions
will have to be made, as they are made on every single piece of
legislation, on which amendments will be cut, which amendments will be
considered.
I have had amendments that I thought were extremely important that
didn't make the cut. That is the nature of this Chamber. Sometimes we
have to step back and say at some point we will have to vote on a bill
if we want a bill passed.
Our concern on this side of the aisle is that if we get mired down in
the amendment process, we have a fundamental problem. What we are
witnessing here you cannot analogize to a baseball game because in a
baseball game, there is no clock. In the Senate, there is a clock, not
just by day but by week. And at the end of this week, we are scheduled
to go on recess.
For that reason, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the
Senate, filed a cloture motion yesterday. Under the Senate rules, that
means that tomorrow morning at about 10 o'clock, we will vote as to
whether we want to close off debate, close off the amendment number at
228, or let more amendments pile on.
What is the likelihood that we would consider and pass this bill this
week if we allow all amendments to be filed that each Member wishes?
There is no chance whatsoever.
What Senator Reid believes and I share is that we have a historic
opportunity. We may never get this chance again. The last time we had
any serious debate about immigration reform was more than a decade ago.
Honestly, the situation has gotten worse in this country ever since.
Now we have a chance. We have a chance because on a bipartisan basis,
the Senate Judiciary Committee produced a bill. It is not perfect, but
it is a good bill, strongly supported by Senator Kennedy on our side
and Senator McCain on the other side, supported by Republicans and
Democrats who brought it out of the committee 12 to 6.
Our fear is that if we allow this process to mire down with hundreds
of amendments, the clock will run out; we will have missed our chance.
It pains me to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say
there is no way we can vote for cloture, there is no way we can vote to
close down the amendments that are going to be filed here. We have to
stand together as a party. I think there is more at stake. I think this
bill, this bipartisan bill, is evidence that both parties can come
together and must come together if we are going to solve an intractable
problem, such as the problem of immigration reform.
America is not going to remember whether we considered 1 amendment, 5
amendments, 10 amendments or 20 amendments. America will not remember
whether Senator Kyl's amendment was called first or fifth in order. But
America will remember with this vote tomorrow who was on the right side
of history, who was on that side of history that said we have to move
forward to reconcile a serious challenge in this Nation.
The Senator from Kansas talks about security. I am happy to report to
him that every bill under consideration dealing with immigration has
strong security provisions. There is a provision offered by Senator
Frist to make our borders stronger. Virtually the same provision is
being offered on the Democratic side of the aisle in a bipartisan bill.
There is no argument about enforcement, strengthening our borders,
knowing who is here, where they work, where they live, and what they
do. If we are going to be a secure nation, that is essential.
There is no argument about employer enforcement. It has to be part of
an enforcement system.
Where we do have differences of opinion, of course, is what to do
with 11 or 12 million people already here. We think we have struck the
right balance, giving people an opportunity over an 11-year period of
time to earn their way to citizenship. If they work hard, if they have
a job, if they pay their taxes, if they have had a criminal background
check, if they are learning English, if they know about our Nation's
history and its civics, if the people who are asking for this clearly
are good citizens, people of good moral virtue, those are the ones we
want as part of our Nation.
I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say unless we can
call one amendment or five amendments before 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning, we would as soon see this process stop. That would be
unfortunate. Voting for cloture doesn't mean there is an end to
amendments. It means there is a limited time for those amendments
pending, some 30 hours. We still have time to debate and amend this
bill, and we will. But Senator Reid and I share in the belief that we
need a process that brings this to a conclusion. There is no way we can
deal with 228 amendments and have this bill completed this week. That
is why we moved forward on this effort to try to file cloture on a
bipartisan basis and move this bill to final passage.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S2884]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, I thank our majority leader for
coming to the floor and pointing out what is happening because I think
this is a miscarriage of justice, very unfair, and is an indication of
what is fundamentally wrong with the Senate these days. It is important
that in the light of day, the American people be told why immigration
reform, on which the American people feel very strongly we should act
and I believe they feel we should put great focus on border security,
is long overdue.
We made runs on it in the past. I was around when we passed
immigration reform, by title at least, in 1986 and again in 1996. It
didn't work. We have to do more for border security. We have to decide
if we want a temporary worker program, how is it going to be assigned,
what are the responsibilities for it to be implemented, and exactly how
are we going to deal with, again, 11 and 12 million people who are in
this country.
Frankly, I have very little to say on this subject because I am not a
member of the Judiciary Committee. I do not consider myself an
authority, an expert on the substance, as is my colleague from Arizona,
Senator Kyl. He worked on it. He is on the Judiciary Committee. They
discussed it, considered it for weeks and months. I have a lot of
respect for the work that was done in the committee.
I have been proud that our majority leader, Senator Frist, has forced
this issue to a head. Some people have said: Wait a minute, we are not
ready, we haven't had time to cook this issue; there are too many
problems. We should have done this last year, and our leader has been
saying since January this issue must be addressed. It is overdue, and
it is going to be addressed. And, frankly, he told us when it was
coming up--last week. He forced an action in the Judiciary Committee.
Maybe it was a forced action, but it was time we acted.
I have made the point in a variety of forums in the last couple of
days that this is what the Senate ought to be doing. This is a big,
important, difficult issue. The American people expect us to act
instead of sweeping around the edges on salami issues and all kinds of
other issues. This is a big issue. This is an important issue. This is
about who we are and who we are going to be.
Thank goodness the Senate is living up to the expectations our
forefathers had for us: to take up a tough issue, have a debate, have
amendments, and have votes. And all of a sudden people say: Oh, we
can't have votes; we can't vote on amendments on both sides of the
aisles. Senators are saying: I don't want to have to cast a tough vote.
Hallelujah, finally we are going to do something that matters around
here.
Will we get it right? I don't know. I have been trying to listen to
both sides of the debate. I want action. I hope it is the right one.
But we are never going to know until we go forward and consider this
issue and get it done in a responsible way.
If forced to vote on the bill that came out of the committee right
now, I would vote against it. I don't think we have found a third way.
I don't think we have found the sweet spot. I think we have to have
more responsibility.
Illegal aliens are illegal. This is a very difficult, sensitive
problem. We have to think about it. But I don't think we can say: OK,
gee, say you're sorry and pay a fine and everything will be OK. It has
to be more serious than that.
I was looking forward to amendments. Some people will say: Oh, vote
for cloture, let's get this over with; there are too many amendments.
We haven't voted on one amendment. We have been dragging around here
for over a week now. Senator Kyl has tried every way in the world to
get a vote, and the minority in the Senate is blocking even a vote on a
critical amendment by a senior Senator in the leadership of the
majority, I might add, because they don't want to vote.
Frankly, for floor people, I note there are some ways this issue can
be stuffed down the opposition's throat. I don't want to do that. I
thought we were going to rise to the occasion and have a bipartisan
debate.
This is the Senate. This is not the House. And, by the way, I have
been a party to stuffing the minority, and people didn't agree with me.
I filled up the tree. I filed cloture instantly on bills and on
amendments. But almost every way, almost every time it backfired on me.
I admit it now. I remember filling up the tree and blocking Senator
McCain from offering his amendment on campaign finance reform. I did it
more than once. I told him I was going to do it. In the end, he won.
This tactic that has been employed by the Democratic leadership
blocking even a vote on amendments on an issue of this magnitude is
outrageous and, quite frankly, I am offended cloture has been filed by
the minority leader. It is not unprecedented. It has been done 18 times
in the last 10 years. Yes, I did it, too, and again, it doesn't add to
anything. It destroys the potential for good will.
I will vote against any cloture motion filed by the minority leader.
He does not manage the Senate. The majority leader does. And even when
I disagree with him--I admire Senator McCain standing up and saying: I
am not going to support that. Senator McCain has the high hand, he has
the winning hand probably, but he said: Wait a minute, you can't block
Senators from even having a vote on their amendments, even though he is
going to vote against them and speak against them.
What have we done here? This approach cannot stand, it will not
stand, and what I am going to urge our leadership to consider doing is
if we don't get something worked out by sunrise, then the Senate
Democrats are going to be cut out. There is a way we can get an
agreement between the Republicans in the House and the Senate, the
majority in the House and the Senate, and force it to the floor whole-
hog and say: Vote for it, up or down. It can be done. I don't want to
do that. I object to that. But when David Broder writes these articles
about how he can't understand why the majority doesn't work with the
minority, hey, Mr. Broder, take a look at the Senate today. This is the
kind of conduct which makes it impossible for us to get our work done
and makes the majority decide to just ignore the minority.
I am one of those people whose votes hang in the balance. I am not
locked into a position. I probably am willing to go further toward what
the Judiciary Committee did than some of my colleagues. But I am
offended by this, and it may affect my overall vote on the final
product.
This bill has the potential to be bipartisan. It has the potential to
be a major achievement by the Senate and by the Congress and, more
importantly, for the American people. I hope our leadership will say:
Oh well, maybe we just didn't talk enough to each other, and let's work
this out. Let's go forward. We are not going to be able to finish this
legislation this week. So what. Take next week. Take next month. This
issue is too big, too important. The illegal alien problem we have in
this country--and the need for immigration reform--is doing serious
damage to our country. There are good aspects to the bill, but there is
damage being done and the relationship between people is not moving in
a positive way. This is where we show whether we are statesmen or
political hacks who are just trying to find a way to avoid a tough
vote.
I plead with my colleagues: Let's find a way to go forward on this
and get a solution we can all vote for and feel good about. Right now,
we should be ashamed of what we are doing and the way we look.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments of the
Senate's time to try to put this legislation at least into some
perspective, as someone who has worked on legislation dealing with
immigration for some period of time, so the American people can have an
understanding of what this debate is really all about.
I think all of us understand what has been well stated here, and that
is our borders are broken and porous. Ten years ago, we estimated that
about 40,000 were coming into this country illegally and we were
catching maybe almost half of them. Now the estimates are from 400,000
to over 1 million, and we are catching 5 or 10 percent of them. We have
increased expenditures by $20 billion in terms of law enforcement and
building fences and increasing border
[[Page S2885]]
guards 300 percent over the period of the last 10 years, and it doesn't
work. It has not worked, and it is not working today. Although there
are a number of our colleagues who believe it offers the best way to
try to get a handle on our borders.
That was the position which was taken by the House of Representatives
and passed by the House of Representatives, effectively criminalizing
every individual who is undocumented here in the United States and
criminalizing any individual who might have been indirectly helping
that person, whether it was a minister, a member of the clergy, or a
nonprofit organization such as a humane group that operates in a
feeding program or looks after people who have been in shelters. That
is why Bishop Mahony, the cardinal of Los Angeles, said that the House
legislation was such a vicious piece of legislation. Those aren't my
words; those are his. That was the position of the House of
Representatives. Many of us who have worked on immigration issues
believe that is not the answer.
The fact is, it was the majority leader who introduced similar
legislation in the Senate of the United States which to many of us
represented the position of the Republican Party. That was the position
which was introduced by the majority leader. There wasn't a great deal
of turmoil or opposition at the time he did that, so that was why many
thought that was going to be the position of the Republican Party. That
is at least one aspect of this debate and discussion.
Another aspect of it: Some 3\1/2\ years ago, the Senator from
Arizona, Mr. McCain, introduced legislation dealing with immigration in
a more comprehensive way--rather than just law enforcement, looked at
other factors in addition to law enforcement. Over 3 years ago, I
introduced legislation that looked at a number of different aspects in
terms of legalization and other kinds of approaches but different from
those of Senator McCain. At about that time, Senator Hagel and Senator
Daschle introduced different legislation. This was all before the 2004
election.
Then, after the election, when we saw that these different pieces of
legislation which were introduced were not working, Senator McCain and
I worked together and in May of 2005 introduced common legislation. We
were convinced of a number of things. We were convinced, first of all,
about the importance of securing our borders from a national security
point of view. You have all these individuals who are coming in here,
and in the wake of 9/11, we don't know who they are, and this presents
a national security issue. If you have millions of immigrants who are
virtually underground because they are undocumented, this is a national
security issue. When we find out that Homeland Security is worried
about different cells in different parts of the country, and we know we
have millions of immigrants who are subject to exploitation because
they are undocumented, this is a national security issue.
So we looked at it and said: What are the features that are going to
be necessary to deal with national security, because that is very
important, and to deal with the fact that there is this magnet, drawing
people to the United States, the magnet of the American economy so that
strong individuals who want to provide for their families, work hard,
play by the rules, and provide for their families are offered jobs by
American employers? So they come here and send money back to look after
their children and families, to develop a community. Many hard-working
individuals have come, and many of them have enlisted in the Armed
Forces of our country. More than 70,000 are serving in the Armed Forces
of our country. Permanent resident aliens are in the Armed Forces
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So we said: What is necessary is we have to bring these people out of
the shadows. How are we going to do that? We have to entice them out so
they feel they can be a part of our American system, and how is that
going to happen? Since they cut in front of this line instead of
waiting their turn, if they were to follow the immigration laws, we
would say: You have to go to the back of the line. You have to go to
the back of the line. You have to wait until that line is cleared up.
You have to pay a fine, pay your taxes, abide by the laws of this
country, work hard, and then, 11 years from now--11 years from now--you
will be eligible to become an American citizen. The other side says: We
can't do that because that is amnesty. That is amnesty.
It is very interesting that whenever we talk about the undocumented,
in many instances men and women who work hard, who are trying to
provide for their families, who are devoted to their religion--98
percent of the undocumented are working today. Working. These are
qualities which we admire--people who work hard, provide for their
families, have beliefs in their God, are attentive to their church,
care for their children--all qualities we admire. But that is too bad;
we are just going to send them back or criminalize them. We are going
to send them back.
So we have a difference here in the Senate. We have an agreement that
we have to get a border and it has to be secure. We have the
undocumented, and the question is, How are we going to deal with them?
And we have differences in this body. Many say we have to send them
back. We heard speeches even earlier today saying that we can't permit,
under any circumstances, that they remain here in this country. There
has been no talk about how they are going to do it. Of the 240
amendments that are before us, I didn't see any asking for $240 billion
to get the buses out there to ship them back, while their children, who
are American citizens, are pleading that they remain here, and their
children are going to school and want their parents to stay. No, no.
Let's just get a bumper-sticker solution and call it amnesty. Bumper
sticker: It Is Amnesty. Bumper sticker: Bad. It is just a bumper-
sticker solution, rather than dealing with a complex issue.
So Senator McCain and I worked on this issue. We worked out the
program, the penalties, the requirements for people who are here to be
able to earn their way toward the possibility of citizenship, bring
them out of the shadows, treat them in a humane way, understanding that
we have a problem and an issue. And as much as those on the other side
of the aisle might bellyache about this solution, they don't have any
answer, other than criminalizing it. That is the answer they have:
criminalizing. So we have what I consider a just solution. It may not
be the right one, it may not be, but at least it is--I believe and the
majority of the American people believe that earning your way to be a
citizen in this country is an acceptable way to treat these
individuals.
So then the issue is, we have a magnet here in the United States. Now
we are talking about the border. How are we going to lessen the
pressure on the border? There are a number of things in our bill. One
is that we want to try to cooperate with Mexico, the countries of
Central America, in terms of trying to work out more effective ways and
means of being able to do it. There are a variety of different ways.
The Mexican Government has indicated that. I think there are a variety
of different ways of trying to do that to lessen the pressure. We have
basically the only proposal that gives any consideration to that
whatsoever, and I think it can be extremely meaningful.
We find the remittances, as they go back to Mexico, to many of these
communities. So many of the people who are here remit funds because
they care about their families and their communities. We could work
with Mexico to lessen the pressure.
Nonetheless, we understand that we are still going to be a magnet. So
we say: OK, let's set a figure. We had a negotiation, and 400,000 was
the figure for temporary workers. After 4 years, they have an
opportunity to petition for a green card and after 5 more years--to
become 9 years--to be able to become American citizens if they
demonstrate they have worked hard, paid their taxes, haven't run into
trouble with the law.
So we are saying we want to make the borders secure in terms of the
security issues, and we want to make it safe for people to come here,
and we want to have a process so that the magnet which is the American
economy will draw people in an orderly way--not to replace American
jobs but to advertise and see if there are Americans available. But if
they are jobs Americans won't do, there will be a
[[Page S2886]]
legal way for people to come in. So the person who is down in the
center part of Mexico will have an alternative: Do you want to risk
going across the desert and dying in the desert, or do you want to go
to your embassy and find out if there is a job for which you are
qualified and go to the United States and have at least some job
protection in the job you have? That is the alternative. Legality.
Legality. Legality in gaining entrance, not illegal across the border,
earning the legal position by earning your legalization.
Then we have the enforcement provisions. In the United States, if
employers are going to hire undocumented aliens, then we have 5,000
individuals who are going to be trained and equipped to be able to go
after employers who are going to attempt to violate the law. The
temporary worker gets the biometric card, comes up and presents it to
the employer, and then we know he or she is documented. If not, then we
know he is undocumented, and then that person is going to be subject to
penalties. It has never been tried before, but it is a local process
and a legal system.
What many of us are saying here tonight is we have a total package
that talks about the border, talks about the temporary worker, talks
about law enforcement, and talks about earned legalization. That is the
package. That is the package that came out of the Judiciary Committee
12 to 6. Not bits and pieces, not just border security like the
Republican leader had or like the House of Representatives had. It
garnered 12 members of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans and
Democrats alike, in a bipartisan way, after 7 days of hearings, 6 days
of markups, and scores of different amendments. What Senator Reid is
talking about is why not let us have a vote on that particular approach
to the challenge that we are facing on immigration? There are those who
just want law enforcement--fine. But why is it that those who worked,
and worked hard, and looked at this and studied it, and studied hard,
and after days of hearings and a lot of work--why should we be denied
the opportunity to have a vote on the total package?
That is what we are being asked. We are being asked: Let's split that
package up somewhat. Let's try to divert it.
I know there are those strongly opposed to it. I respect them. I have
heard them. I listened to them. They are on our committee and strongly
oppose it. I strongly respect that. But aren't we entitled to at least
a chance to have a vote on a comprehensive approach? What is so
difficult about it? I agree with the Senator from Mississippi, this is
important. We ought to be continuing on this issue. It is of vital
importance and consequence. It affects the lives of hundreds of
thousands, millions of people. We have seen what is out there, across
the country--500,000 people in southern California, 100,000 people in
Chicago. You are going to see next Monday in 10 different cities, more
than a million individuals who are out there demonstrating.
Why are we not dealing with this? Why don't we deal with it? What
many of us are asking, including myself, is give us at least the
opportunity to vote on that. If that is not successful, if we cannot
get the majority here, then so be it. We have to find a different
approach.
We talk about trying to work through these accommodations. I am
always interested in listening to individuals, people who are concerned
about this. We have had, as I mentioned, early in this debate, the
extraordinary stories from our friend and colleague, the Senator from
New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, telling his life story--the absolutely
extraordinary story of his parents. We listened to the good Senator
from Florida, Mel Martinez, talk about this. I listened to my
colleagues. Ken Salazar's relatives were here 250 years before any of
our ancestors were here, down in the Southwest and out in Colorado. We
listened to Bob Menendez as well. We listened to our other colleagues
who have been engaged in this. They understand its difficulty and its
complexity.
We do have a recommendation from our committee. It seems that in the
life of this institution we ought to be able to have a vote on that
particular proposal. If it does not carry, then we will have to deal
with the other reality. But to deny us the opportunity to get that as
well as consider other amendments, as the Senator from Illinois pointed
out, that will be relevant and current tomorrow, after cloture--I think
would be an enormous loss.
I certainly have worked and I am glad to work to reduce the
differences among views and opinions. I think all of us are going
through the learning experience. As much as we know about immigration,
we always learn more from talking with people who are concerned and
interested and knowledgeable about these issues. The legislative
process is an evolving process. I have certainly observed that over an
extensive period of time. So we are always interested.
If there are ways we can achieve the outlines that we talked about,
at least from my point of view then it makes sense. What does not make
sense is to try to separate different groups against each other. That I
find difficult to accept. We cannot have one group that has been here
for a lengthy period of time, another group that has been here almost
as long, and have them treated in different ways. That doesn't really
solve the problem. It might help some people in terms of how they are
going to vote on a particular issue, but it really is not dealing with
the substance. We are interested in dealing with the substance, not
just getting safe political positions for our colleagues. We want to
get this legislation done.
We certainly want to try to find common ground, right up until the
very end. I will certainly work in any way I can. I know others are
thinking and working hard on it. As has been pointed out by every
speaker, this is too important a piece of legislation to let it slip
by. It is too important.
I am proud of the proposal that is before the Senate. I think it is
the result of a great deal of thought and examination by a variety of
our different colleagues from all parts of the country and with all
different kinds of constituents. When you get an issue that is as
volatile as this, and you have a 12 to 6 vote and you have that kind of
bipartisanship in this, recognize those of us who support this proposal
understand it is a total kind of approach to the challenge. The single-
shot approaches have not worked. Let's just try, here in the United
States Senate, to give an opportunity for this comprehensive approach,
which is meaningful in terms of our national security, is enormously
important in terms of economic progress, and most important is a
reflection of our humanitarian values. Let's give that a chance. That
is what we are hoping, and I hope the Senate will give us that
opportunity to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Massachusetts leaves
the floor, I wonder if I might ask him a question--if he would be kind
enough just to respond to this, I hope.
The Senator from Massachusetts was one of the prime participants in
our Judiciary Committee markup and meetings. He was on the prevailing
side of the vote which passed out the bill which we are now debating.
I inform the Senator, by the way, it was my recommendation at the
leadership meeting that rather than the leader's bill, the Senate
judiciary bill be the underlying bill.
The question I wanted to ask the Senator is this: The Senator is
aware of the Cornyn-Kyl bill, which to some extent is a competitor of
the bill that passed. That was rejected in the Judiciary Committee;
that is to say, we lost that vote.
The Senator was talking a moment ago about alternatives in the
Senate, I believe. I don't think he would want to be misunderstood in
this regard. He said there is no answer but to criminalize them. I know
the Senator--I presume the Senator did not mean that in the Senate
there has been nothing proposed except to criminalize the people who
are here illegally because the Senator, of course, is aware of the
alternative legislation Senator Cornyn and I introduced.
Would the Senator at all like to comment on that?
Mr. KENNEDY. The remarks that I had were directed toward the
undocumented. The Senator from Arizona has an amendment that is
portrayed as only preventing the adjustment status for criminals, but
if you look and examine the various provisions which are included in
the Senator's amendment,
[[Page S2887]]
they also include the status offenders which effectively would be
denied any opportunity for the benefits of this legislation.
In the provisions included in the legislation--I haven't got the
amendment right before me, but there are three or four different items
that would do so. That, I think, goes to the heart of this whole
process because effectively, if the Cornyn-Kyl amendment is adopted, it
effectively takes out 60 percent, as I understand it, of those who are
undocumented from any kind of adjustment of status.
I have listened to the Senator debate this. That is certainly my
understanding and the understanding of others who studied it carefully,
and that would leave the individuals in the kind of state they are
today, where they would have an illegality in their current status and
would continue to be subject to the kinds of exploitation which is
happening now and continue to depress wages on other workers. I believe
that would really strike at the heart of the legislation. I know the
Senator does not agree with me on that.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could just ask the Senator from
Massachusetts, I was not referring to the amendment which is pending on
the floor of the Senate. I was referring to the Cornyn-Kyl bill, which
is a comprehensive immigration reform bill that deals with enforcement
at the border, enforcement at the worksite, a temporary worker program,
a way to deal with the illegal immigrants different in ways from the
bill that passed the Judiciary Committee but nonetheless is a
comprehensive reform bill which was voted down. But it does represent
an alternative on which we would like to have a vote on the Senate
floor.
I wanted to give the Senator an opportunity to acknowledge that in
the Senate there are alternatives to criminalizing the illegal
immigrants--if he wanted to?
Mr. KENNEDY. I thought at the beginning of the Senator's comments he
was referring to the amendment----
Mr. KYL. There was a misunderstanding.
Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator notes, the House bill had the
criminalization. The Frist bill had the criminalization issues. The
Cornyn-Kyl does not have that particular provision. I do think when we
voted on that issue, on the Durbin amendment, I think the Senator voted
against the Durbin amendment, if I am correct, which was to
decriminalize. So I don't quite know what the Senator's position is on
the issue, but I stand corrected.
I was mentioning the House bill and the Senate majority leader's
bill.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. In the debate and
characterization of things, sometimes we make a characterization and it
might be subject to misinterpretation. It may well not have been, but
in any event, I appreciate the Senator's clarification.
I want to respond to several things that have been said here--first
of all, to join the majority leader and the others who have spoken to
the issue of the need for a debate and the ability to offer amendments
and to vote on those amendments as a part of this very important
legislative effort. I don't know that we will do anything more
important this year than try to adopt comprehensive immigration reform.
It is critical to my State. There are an awful lot of people in the
State of Arizona illegally who do not enjoy the protection of the law,
and should. Simply because they came here illegally, they should not be
denied that protection. We need to find a way to ensure that in some
way the status of everyone who works in and remains in the United
States is in a legal status. It is also critical that we secure the
border and provide an enforcement mechanism to ensure that people who
work here work here legally.
Let me divide my remarks in two pieces, if I could, first of all, to
respond to something the Senator from Illinois, the minority whip, had
to say when he was here. He noted there are about 200 amendments that
have been filed. His point was it is hard to figure out which ones to
consider.
My point is this. If anything is certain, it is that if you do not
start, you don't consider any of them. It is always the case that there
are more amendments filed than are considered. But at least we start
the process at the beginning of the debate. I laid down an amendment
last Thursday afternoon. It is the pending amendment. This is Wednesday
afternoon. Tomorrow it will be pending an entire week. It was the first
amendment laid down. The other 199 followed it. We have not even gotten
a vote on amendment No. 1 yet.
To complain that there are 200 amendments out there and we just don't
know where to start and it has been a whole week and we can't figure
out where to start and that is why we are stopping you from voting on
any of them doesn't wash. Let's be very clear. The reason the
Democratic side has prevented us from offering amendments and from
voting on amendments is because they don't want to vote on them--
period. It is not that there are so many they can't figure out which
ones to allow a vote. They don't want to vote on them.
Why? There are two reasons. The first is they like the bill as it is.
That is a perfectly legitimate point. But that is always the case with
one side or the other. But whichever side doesn't like the bill gets a
chance to try to amend it. If the majority is right, that they have the
votes, they can vote these amendments down.
Senator Kennedy just spoke to the amendment that is pending. He
obviously does not think it is a good amendment. He is going to vote
against it. I think it is a real good amendment and it goes right to a
point of the bill that is pending before us: should criminals be
allowed to participate in the benefits of this legislation? I say no.
That is an amendment that people do not want to vote on. I guess that
is the other thing. Not only do a lot of folks on the other side like
the bill as it is, and therefore they don't want to see it changed--
although that is not really a good reason for denying us a right to
offer amendments--but I don't think they want to take a vote on some of
these amendments perhaps because it is somewhat embarrassing.
I am willing to concede that there are lots of drafting errors. I
have made some including on this bill. So it is not always the way you
want it to be. But including crimes of moral turpitude and drug
crimes--whoever drafted the bill on the other side--they felt they had
cut out criminals from participating in the program. The problem is,
there are a lot of crimes besides drug crimes and crimes of moral
turpitude. I read that list. I think it would be better to simply say
we agree that we didn't mean for criminals to participate, and either
table the amendment or again vote for it or vote against it, whatever.
But we could have had that done with a long time ago. Instead we have
spent a day debating on whether to vote on the amendment.
As I said before, with all these 200 amendments you are never going
to get any of them done if you do not start. The Democratic side has
prevented us from starting. As the majority leader said, that is not
acceptable. And for the minority leader to file cloture to cut off
debate and cut off the filing of any other amendments, that adds insult
to injury because then it says not only can't you debate this bill or
amendments that are offered, but there can't be any other amendments
offered.
There is talk about some kind of compromise. Clearly, if a new
amendment is offered there should be an opportunity to respond to that
in some way, including potentially offering an amendment to it. It is
very difficult because of the complexity of this bill to ensure that
any amendment is germane. That is a term of art which you will hear in
this body, but that is all you can do after cloture is invoked, and it
is hard to do that. It is no simple proposition to say let's close off
debate and finish the bill, whatever is germane. That is very difficult
to do. Choking off debate with a cloture motion is done to stop
filibusters. There hasn't been a filibuster. We would like to get a
bill. We would like to have debate and vote on amendments and vote on a
bill.
Most of us in this body want comprehensive immigration reform.
The reason I engaged in the colloquy with the Senator from
Massachusetts is because we have two competing versions. His version
passed in the Judiciary Committee; mine did not. Both are
comprehensive. They both deal with border security, with security in
the entire area of the country, including at the workplace with a
temporary
[[Page S2888]]
work program and with providing a new status for the people who are
here illegally. They do that in different ways, but they both tackle
the same comprehensive issue.
It is a straw man that anybody on this side doesn't want a bill.
It is also wrong to say that we can't start voting because we just do
not know where to start. The reality is, we could have started and we
should have started and this bill is not going to be completed until we
start.
There were a couple of things that the Senator from Massachusetts
said that I want to clarify. One is there is quite a bit of derogation
with the House position. While there are some things in the House bill
that I agree with and others that I disagree with, I must say this is a
very different picture of what the House stands for and what
Republicans stand for than what has been portrayed.
For example, I think there are probably many out there who believe
the House bill stands for the proposition that we need to make it a
felony for people to be in this country illegally. And since the House
is controlled by Republicans, that must be the Republican position.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know of a Republican
Senator, No. 1, who wants to have it a felony for a status violation of
the immigration law or for crossing the border illegally.
What happened in the House of Representatives? Representative
Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said we need to
take that felony status and change it to a misdemeanor. So a vote was
taken. On that vote there were 164 ayes and 257 nays. The vote lost. So
it remained a felony.
Who voted against the amendment to make it a misdemeanor? Mr.
President, 191 of the 202 Democrats voted against the amendment to turn
the felony to a misdemeanor; 191 of the 202 Democrats voted to leave it
a felony. The majority of Republicans voted to make it a misdemeanor.
Let us stop denigrating the House of Representatives, and in
particular the Republicans, by somehow contending that either
Republicans, or the majority of the House Members who are Republicans,
wanted this to be a felony. It was the Democratic Members of the House
of Representatives who voted to keep it a felony. The majority of
Republicans voted to make it a misdemeanor.
We need to clear up some of the impressions that have been created
around here because of very sloppy language. I will put it that way so
I don't ascribe any bad motive to anyone.
Part of that impression could have been created. That is what I was
trying to correct with the Senator from Massachusetts a moment ago when
he said that the alternative was to round them up and send them back
and that there was no answer but to criminalize them. I appreciated
what the Senator said because the Senate does not have a bill to
criminalize the status of aliens, certainly not to make them felonies.
And no one I know of has proposed an alternative to round them up and
send them back. Everyone has agreed. I shouldn't say everyone because
there are people who believe it is possible to somehow force all of the
illegal immigrants to be returned to their country of origin. I think
that is a very unrealistic option and that, therefore, it would not be
appropriate to round up everybody and send them back. That is a false
choice. There isn't a bill on the floor of the Senate today that does
that.
Why are these false choices presented as the only alternative to the
bill that is before us on the floor? As I pointed out, there are
several other choices. One was introduced by Senator Cornyn and myself,
a comprehensive bill that doesn't round up everybody and send them back
but criminalizes everyone.
I think to engage in this debate we should engage with reason and
without mischaracterizing things. There are good enough reasons to
oppose each other's bill without mischaracterizing them. If I have ever
mischaracterized anything--I hope I haven't--I apologize for it.
The Senator from Massachusetts said something else that is very
important. He said it was a necessity to have an incentive for illegal
aliens to come out of the shadows, and the bill that he and others had
crafted provided this potential for citizenship to provide that
incentive.
That is one approach. I disagree with it. But that is certainly an
approach. But it is not the only approach.
I want to go back to what most people have said about the people who
are here illegally to illustrate a point. Most folks say they just came
here to do work that Americans won't do. Let me stipulate that many--in
fact, the majority--of the people did come here to work. There is no
question about that. Let us not forget that between 10 and 15 percent
of the people who are apprehended when they come here by crossing the
border illegally are criminals. These are bad people. They don't just
come here to work. They come here for illicit purposes. They are
criminals and they need to be dealt with as criminals. That is between
10 and 15 percent.
But there is another 85 to 90 percent who undoubtedly come here
primarily to work, to earn money, mostly to send back to friends or
relatives in their home country. So let us stipulate to that.
Most of them did not come here to become citizens of the United
States. As a matter of fact, Senator Hutchison pointed out something
which is very true. If you know one thing about Mexican citizens, it is
that they are very proud. They have a beautiful country. It is actually
a wealthy country. Their culture is a tremendous culture and they are
very proud of it. They are very patriotic and nationalistic.
I think it is a bit odd that we--not me but many here--just assume
that they all want to be citizens of the United States. Many want the
ability to be here permanently, to reside here and to work here
permanently, if that is their choice and they have green cards for that
reason. Many other people from other parts of the world have green
cards but don't choose to become citizens. That is fine. But we
shouldn't presume that everyone wants to be a citizen simply because
they came here to work.
The other fallacy is they came here to do work that Americans won't
do. I think you have to amend that slightly to say that they came here
to do work that Americans won't do at the price that people from other
countries are willing to do it for.
In fact, there is a lot of work that Americans are willing to do, if
the work is there, that people from foreign countries are doing today
side by side. I mention the construction industry as a good example
because in my State of Arizona it is hard to get enough good
construction workers. There are many thousands, tens of thousands or
more, working in construction that are illegal. I would quickly grant
them temporary permits to work in the United States in construction. We
need their help. But I also know that in the field of construction
there have been many times when a very well-qualified American citizen
construction worker can't find a job. It is very cyclical employment.
What we don't want to do is assume that all of the people who came
here from another country came here to do jobs that Americans won't do
and, therefore, there will always be a job for them because Americans
will never do the work. Americans will do this kind of work. They will
do it gladly. They don't want to do it for free. They do not want to do
it too cheaply. But there aren't very many jobs that they will do for a
pretty cheap price. If the jobs aren't there, obviously the reason we
have a temporary program is to issue a temporary permit while the job
is there, and when the work returns you can start issuing more
temporary permits.
One of the problems with the underlying bill is you convert all the
temporary permits into permanent legal residency and then you have no
ability to ask anyone who is a guest here to leave because they have a
right to stay here permanently even though there is no job for them
some years in the future.
The point is, it is true that you need an incentive for illegal
immigrants to participate in a legal program. All of the bills have
different kinds of legal programs. The Cornyn-Kyl bill has one; the
bill on the floor has one. We provide a lot of incentives and some
disincentives. You can stay for up to 5 years under our bill. Nobody is
rounded up and deported. You can stay for 5 years.
[[Page S2889]]
One reason that number was fixed was because the survey of over
35,000 Mexican citizens who are illegal immigrants said if they could
stay for 5 years and participate in the guest worker program, 71
percent of them said they would then return home. I don't know that
they all would. I think it is totally wrong to assume they all won't.
There is an incentive to stay here for 5 years. You can also
participate in a temporary work program when you go home. The sooner
you go home the longer you can participate in that program. You can
build a nest egg and take that back with you when you leave.
There are incentives in our bill as well. It may not be the incentive
of citizenship. I don't think you have to have that incentive in order
to, as the phrase goes, bring people out of the shadows.
Different people can argue about this. Reasonable people can differ
about all of these things. I am willing to listen to the debate on the
other side. But I would ask a favor in return. Just as we allowed the
bill to be passed out of the Judiciary Committee, as the Presiding
Officer is well aware--and we didn't filibuster the bill there, though
it could have been filibustered--we allowed it to pass out knowing that
it would pass over our votes. We had an alternative. It didn't have the
votes to pass. We would like an opportunity to vote on that alternative
on the floor of the Senate. Is that too much to ask?
We would like an opportunity to vote on about five amendments.
I am speaking now for Senator Cornyn and myself. That is all. We
boiled it down to just five along with our underlying amendment. I
would like the opportunity to do that.
When we debated the energy bill, I think the comment was there were
over 70 amendments, and these were significant amendments. This isn't
like the amendments to the budget bill. I think there have been two
relatively insignificant--well, one good--I won't characterize them.
There have been two amendments voted on. The authors, I am sure,
thought they were all significant.
But the bottom line is nothing has gone to the heart of the bill one
way or the other until that debate occurs and until those amendments
are allowed to be offered and until they are allowed to be voted on. It
is unfair to think that we could just shut off the debate, have one
vote on final passage and be done with it.
I will say this because there is another Member of the minority here.
I have another amendment that I have repeatedly tried to lay down. All
it does is say with regard to the temporary worker program that before
that program actually starts, the mechanisms be in place for it to
work. The experts say that it takes about 18 months. You can start
getting ready for it. You can put those mechanisms in place, and the
minute they are ready, the program can start.
You might disagree with the amendment, but it is not an unreasonable
amendment. There are a lot of folks who say: How can we trust you to
have a workable program? And the answer is, watch us. We will create
it. The sooner it is ready, you can start your program. That is the
kind of thing we are talking about. I don't think they are
unreasonable.
I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues, but I wanted to clear
up some things. You can't finish the voting until you start the voting.
We need to start it. There are legitimate amendments. Nobody is
filibustering.
Let us get on with the process so that we can conclude this important
piece of legislation, get the bill to the House of Representatives, and
hopefully be able to say at the end of this year that we were able to
tackle and to successfully resolve the most difficult issue
domestically facing this country today, the problem of illegal
immigration.
I thank the Chair.
While the Senator from Maryland is present, allow me to congratulate
her on her Lady Terps who in the first half didn't look like they were
going to pull it out but came back like the champs they are.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I also have been working on a terrorist
visa amendment. I call up that amendment, No. 3216, for consideration.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I object on behalf of the minority
leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. ALLARD. I am very disappointed we cannot get that amendment up. I
have been working now for some time to get that amendment to move
forward. It is an amendment I filed last week. It is a simple,
commonsense amendment that denies visas to advocates of terrorism.
Yesterday morning, I came to the Senate to speak on that amendment and
asked for a vote.
Now, more than 24 hours later, we have still not had a vote on my
simple, 14-line amendment. It is just one example of the Democrats
continued obstruction of well intentioned efforts to debate and make
improvements to the immigration bill.
Put simply, the Democrats are denying me a vote on my proposal to
deny visas to terrorists. Any Democrat who says this is anything other
than partisan obstructionism are themselves in denial.
To demonstrate the height to which this obstructionism has risen, I
am again going to explain what my amendment does and how simple it
really is.
My amendment is so simple, in fact, that it adds only 6 words to the
entire Immigration and Nationality Act. And half of those are the word
``or.'' The other three are ``advocate,'' ``advocates,'' and
``advocated.''
These 6 words are narrowly targeted to address a loophole in our
current visa system that is evidenced by the following statement:
Colleagues, believe it or not, this a heading from our very own
Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. The same Foreign Affairs
Manual issued to the Department's 25,000 employees located in more than
250 posts or missions worldwide.
Even more alarmingly, this is from the chapter that instructs our
consular officers to whom visas should be issued. Visas are, of course,
the ticket that foreigners, including terrorists, need to enter the
U.S.
This instruction says to the consular officer deciding whether or not
to issue a visa that they need not deny a visa to an individual who
advocates terrorism. I, for one, cannot imagine a more pertinent ground
for denial. If advocacy of terrorism is not grounds for exclusion, I
don't know what is.
Not only am I concerned about the message this sends to our dedicated
consular officers, I am just as concerned about the message this sends
to terrorists. It says to them, feel free to lay the groundwork for an
attack at home, apply for a visa, and come to America to finish the
job. This is not the message that the U.S. should be conveying to
terrorists.
This Congress has already passed important legislation denying visas
to terrorists, including in the PATRIOT and REAL ID Acts. The REAL ID
Act, signed into law on May 11, 2005, specifically states that one who
endorses or espouses terrorist activity is inadmissible.
The real REAL ID Act became public law on May 11 of last year, 8 days
after publication of this manual. Yet, today, more 10 months later, the
State Department is still instructing its consular officers that
advocacy of terrorism may not be a ground for exclusion.
Clearly, the State Department needs to be sent a message that we, in
Congress, are serious about securing our borders. And particularly
serious about preventing known advocates of terrorism--people who are
most likely to wish harm to our country--from entering into the United
States.
Admittance to the United States is a privilege, not a right. My
amendment says, if you advocate terrorism, you lose the privilege of
coming to the United States.
I would like the opportunity to debate this amendment. I, for one, am
curious to hear from the Democrats their reason for opposing it.
It is a common sense amendment worthy of debate and a vote. I urge my
colleagues to join me in calling for a vote on this legislation that
slams the door shut in the face of advocates of terrorism who seek to
enter our country.
I also submitted a second amendment last week which I believe is
another commonsense amendment to improve the immigration bill.
My amendment No. 3213 calls upon the administration to develop a plan
for securing the borders to curb the inflow of vast quantities of
methamphetamine into this country.
[[Page S2890]]
Our Nation has been hard hit by the illegal trafficking of
methamphetamine. My home State of Colorado is no exception. In just 10
years, methamphetamine has become America's worst drug problem--worse
than marijuana, cocaine or heroin.
According to estimates from the DEA, an alarming 80 percent of the
methamphetamine used in the United States comes from larger labs,
increasingly abroad, while only 20 percent of the methamphetamine
consumed in this country comes from the small laboratories.
Therefore, my simple amendment calls for a formal plan that outlines
the diplomatic, law enforcement, and other procedures that the Federal
Government will implement to reduce the amount of methamphetamine being
trafficked into the United States.
My amendment aims to build upon the methamphetamine provisions of the
PATRIOT Act. We must impress upon the Secretary of State, the Attorney
General, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the
immediate need for a firm plan of action. It is imperative that such a
plan include, at a minimum, a specific timeline to reduce the inflow of
methamphetamine into the United States.
There must be a tough standard for keeping excessive amounts of
pseudophedrine products out of the hands of methamphetamine
traffickers. We must outline a specific plan to engage the top five
exporters of methamphetamine precursor chemicals. It is important that
we protect our borders to ensure national security and the safety of
our communities.
Now, here we are today, 1 week to the day after filing my
methamphetamine amendment, and still there has been no opportunity for
a debate, much less a vote. I urge my colleagues from across the aisle
to allow us to proceed on this and other amendments worthy of debate.
Mr. President, I yield for a question from the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his
leadership on this issue. I do not know if he saw the program
``Frontline'' recently, but it talked about the methamphetamine scourge
that is affecting the United States and the fact that now more of this
illicit drug is coming in from Mexico. It is a serious, serious
problem. I congratulate him for addressing this problem.
I hope he understands that when we offered to call his amendment,
asked for unanimous consent to call his amendment and adopt his
amendment, there was objection on his side of the aisle. We stand ready
at this moment to call your amendment for a vote and to adopt it
immediately. I think it is a very important amendment, and it is one of
those that was on the agreed list and, unfortunately, a Member on your
side objected to it. So I hope we can get to it soon. I thank the
Senator for his leadership on this amendment.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand negotiations are going on
between the leadership in both parties, and my understanding is the
methamphetamine amendment may very well be included in a managers'
amendment and we will not have to be necessarily voting on that
particular amendment.
There is a second amendment, though, that is very important we do
bring up for a vote. I know this is also being discussed by the
leadership. That is the one which states that advocates of terrorism be
denied a visa.
I have two amendments. My hope is we can get that particular
amendment up for a vote. It is the one I just recently asked for a vote
on and was denied by your side. But I also understand the leadership on
both sides are negotiating. I understand they are negotiating
seriously. So I appreciate the fact it is being considered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question
or comment.
Mr. ALLARD. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I will just say that we believe the underlying bill, the
Specter substitute bill, has very strong language to make it clear we
do not want anyone in the United States associated with terrorism. We
certainly do not want anyone in the United States associated with
terrorism to reach legal status. That is reprehensible.
So I am prepared to offer to work with the Senator from Colorado on
his amendment to make sure we have included that category with which he
is most concerned. I thank him for his leadership.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for
indicating support for that. I just think we need to go and get more
specific language in the bill that we will be considering and,
hopefully, will be reported off the floor of the Senate. I am just
trying to address that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3420
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to the
underlying bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an
amendment numbered 3420 to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 3192.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Amendment No. 3421 to Amendment No. 3420
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-
degree amendment to the Sessions amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson] proposes an
amendment numbered 3421 to amendment No. 3420.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, over the last hour or two on the floor of
the Senate there has been a procedural move by some Senators on the
other side of the aisle which reduces the likelihood of a compromise on
the immigration bill. I sincerely hope it doesn't end this effort
because I think there are people of good faith on both sides of the
aisle still trying to find a way to pass this important piece of
legislation.
I want to give special credit on the Republican side of the aisle to
Senator Martinez, who I believe is working as hard as any person can to
find the right language that preserves the basic principles of the
Specter substitute, the bipartisan bill which passed the Senate
Judiciary Committee. I hope he is successful. But there is a deadline
looming and that deadline is a vote tomorrow morning on a motion for
cloture.
Cloture is a procedure in the Senate which closes down debate and
says we will limit the number of amendments that may be considered in
the 30 hours after cloture is voted favorably. I am hoping that before
tomorrow morning people of good will, trying to find a way to break
this deadlock, will be able to do so. But the procedural effort by
Senator Kyl a few minutes ago is going to make that a little more
difficult. I still think we can achieve that goal.
I also want to address a couple of comments made by the junior
Senator from Arizona on the floor concerning the history of this bill
and the process that led to this day. This last Sunday I was on a talk
show, ``Face The Nation,'' with Chairman James Sensenbrenner of
Wisconsin, the chairman of
[[Page S2891]]
the House Judiciary Committee. He is the author of the House
immigration bill which passed in December. That bill includes very
serious criminal penalties for those who are living in the United
States undocumented, who may number as many as 11 or 12 million people.
It also includes very serious criminal penalties for those who would
help them reside in the United States if they are undocumented.
The charge under the Sensenbrenner bill is aggravated felony. It is
the same charge leveled at someone accused of being a rapist. It is an
extremely serious criminal charge, and the Sensenbrenner bill which
passed the House includes this aggravated felony charge.
Most people across America believe the House bill has gone way too
far in charging so many people who are in the United States with such a
serious crime. On the floor it has been said by the Senator from
Arizona that there was an effort to reduce that penalty to a
misdemeanor on the floor of the House and that unfortunately the
Democrats did not support that effort. It is true that 190 Democrats
did not support that effort because they do not favor a criminal
penalty for those who are here in an undocumented status. So ultimately
the majority party in the House, the Republican Party, prevailed and
the bill came to us with an aggravated felony as a charge against those
who are here undocumented and those who help them.
What it means in the real world is that people of faith who are
volunteers at soup kitchens or shelters for homeless people and those
who are victims of domestic violence, volunteers who help children of
the undocumented, tutoring them for classes, helping them in their
lives, coaching their teams, nurses who provide volunteer assistance at
clinics that treat the undocumented in the city of Chicago and around
the United States, would be subject to a felony charge under the
Sensenbrenner bill.
Senator Specter came to the Senate Judiciary Committee and offered an
alternative. His alternative reduced the criminal charge to a
misdemeanor. We brought that up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary
Committee and I am glad that on a bipartisan basis we removed the
criminal penalty that was in the original bill. I think that was a
positive step forward.
The Senator from Arizona, who has raised this question, did not
support our efforts to remove criminalization from the Specter bill,
but the bill as it comes to the floor, thankfully, does not include
criminalization. I hope that is the end of that issue as to whether we
are going to charge Good Samaritans with a misdemeanor or a felony for
helping needy people across America. I hope it is not revived as one of
the concepts in this immigration reform.
The junior Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, also raised questions
about whether people who were guilty of a crime should be allowed to
become legal in America or citizens in America. We tried to be very
express in our statement in the bill, the Specter substitute, which was
drafted originally by Senators McCain and Kennedy on a bipartisan
basis, that if you are guilty of a crime we don't want you as an
American. We understand you have done something in your life which
disqualifies you from what we are going to offer you, a long and
serious opportunity to find a pathway to legalization and citizenship.
Under the Judiciary Committee bill, the Specter bill as reported, the
following is a partial list of crimes that make an individual
ineligible for legalization. I read this list because there have been
suggestions on the floor by the Senator from Arizona that we are not
serious about this. Let me tell you expressly the crimes that would
disqualify you from ever becoming a legal resident of America or a
citizen under this bill: Crimes of moral turpitude such as aggravated
assault, assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated DUI, fraud, larceny,
forgery; controlled substances offenses--sale, possession, distribution
of drugs and drug trafficking; theft offenses, including shoplifting;
public nuisances; multiple criminal convictions. Any alien convicted of
two or more offenses, regardless of whether the offense arose from a
single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses
involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences to
confinement were 5 years or more, crimes of violence, counterfeiting,
bribery, perjury, certain aliens involved in serious criminal activity
who have asserted immunity from prosecution, foreign government
officials who have committed particularly severe violations of
religious freedom, significant traffickers of persons, money
laundering, murder, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, possession of
explosives, child pornography, attempts or conspiracies to commit most
of these offenses--and there are some security-related crimes that make
a person ineligible as well, espionage or sabotage--engaging in
terrorist activity.
The reason I make special note of that is there have been references
several times on the floor by the Senator from Arizona to Mohamed Atta,
the fact he was a terrorist, a man who was responsible in large part
for the tragedy of 9/11. Make no mistake, that bill would not give him
an opportunity to become a citizen of the United States. Why in the
world would we ever consider that? I am sure the Senators from both
sides of the aisle who supported the bill would never, ever consider
that possibility.
Those who were associated with terrorist activities, representatives
of a terrorist organization, spouse or child of an individual who is
inadmissible as a terrorist, activity that is deemed to have adverse
foreign policy consequences, and those who are members in a
totalitarian party.
We have cast the net far and wide to disqualify people from even
being considered for legal status in this country if they have been
guilty of this type of conduct.
So though the Senator from Arizona and I may disagree on some other
aspects of the bill, when it comes to criminal activity I think we are
in agreement. Criminal activity is going to disqualify you from being
considered for legalization in the United States. That is a tough
standard, but it is the right standard and I hope we can make it clear
during the course of this debate that we believe it is important to
maintain in the bill and that the amendment of Senator Kyl does not add
anything, really, remarkably, to this criminal disqualification.
The bill which passed out of committee, of course, sets up several
things. First, it sets up an enforcement mechanism which is
substantial, much like the amendment offered by Senator Sessions of
Alabama in the committee. It adds 12,000 new agents to our Border
Patrol, adds 1,000 investigators a year for the next 5 years--that was
Senator Specter's amendment; new security perimeter, under Senator
Specter, virtual fence, tightened controls, exit/entry security system
at all land borders and airports, construction of barriers for vehicles
and mandating new roads where needed, fences, checkpoints, ports of
entry, increased resources for transporting aliens, new criminal
penalties for tunnels--that was a recommendation of Senators Feinstein
and Kyl--new criminal penalties for evading immigration officers, by
Senator Sessions--all of these amendments accepted, included in the
bill in the enforcement section--new criminal penalties for money
laundering offered by Senator Sessions, accepted as part of this
bipartisan bill.
There is an amendment on a comprehensive surveillance plan by Senator
Specter; and also, I should say, expanded smuggling efforts, improved
interagency cooperation on alien smuggling; increased document fraud
detection; biometric identifiers; expanded detention authority; and
increased detention facilities and beds.
We require the Department of Homeland Security to acquire 20 new
detention facilities to accommodate at least 10,000 detainees, a
suggestion by Senator Sessions which is part of this bill; expanded
terrorist removal grounds; expanded aggravated felony definition;
increased Federal penalties for gangs; removal of those who have failed
to depart; increased criminal sentences for repeat illegal entrants;
new removal grounds; passport fraud and fraud offenses as a ground for
removal; removal of criminals prior to release; new authority for State
and local police to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer
aliens to Federal custody; immigration status in the NCIC database now
becomes an element that we require; we prohibit time limits on
background collection; impose criminal penalties for aid for the
[[Page S2892]]
undocumented; assistance to States to help prosecute and imprison
undocumented criminal aliens; stronger employment verification
procedures; penalties for employers who hire undocumented aliens are
increased; additional worksite enforcement and fraud detection agents.
We add 10,000 new worksite enforcement agents, 2,000 every year for
the next 5 years, and 5,000 new fraud detection agents, 1,000 each year
for the next 5 years.
I read this lengthy list so the Record would be clear that we have
made serious efforts on a bipartisan basis to accept amendments even
from those Senators who oppose the underlying bill so there is no
question that we will have strong enforcement standards to secure our
Nation's borders, and to also say those employers who ignore the law
will be penalized and will be investigated so that they understand we
are serious.
The reason, of course, I bring this up is the suggestion earlier that
this bill would not strengthen our borders. I think it does. I think it
makes a genuine effort on a bipartisan basis to deal with our broken
borders.
It also says, however, that once in the United States, for the
undocumented status we will give you a chance, a chance to work your
way to citizenship. It is a long journey. It has many serious
requirements as you move toward that goal, and many people won't make
it. Some will fail in the effort. But if you want to become legal in
the United States of America, you need a clean criminal record. And I
spelled out here the crimes that would clearly disqualify you.
You must show you have been employed here since January of 2004. You
must remain continuously employed, pay approximately $2,000 in fines
and fees, pass a security background check, pass a medical exam, learn
English, learn U.S. history, pay all your U.S. back taxes, and then if
you have met all nine requirements, you go to the back of the line. It
is your turn after all of those who have applied through the legal
processes which are currently available.
So those who argue this bill is amnesty and it is automatic, that it
is a free ticket to citizenship overlook the obvious. These are
stringent requirements. Many people will never meet them. Some will
give up. But those who are determined to become American citizens and a
part of our country, determined to be legal in their residency, who
work hard and achieve it, if they keep their eye on the goal--and the
goal is after 11 years--will finally see that day when they can be
sworn in as a citizen of the United States.
Tomorrow morning we are facing a very serious vote on cloture. There
have been a lot of arguments made on the floor as to whether the right
amendments have been called. We tried to bring additional amendments to
the floor in the last couple of days, unsuccessfully. There have been
disagreements about which amendments should be called and in what
order.
I don't think history is going to long note or remember what order
the amendments were that were called before this bill is up for
cloture. If the cloture vote fails tomorrow, if 60 Senators don't step
forward to vote for it, sadly that could be the end of immigration
reform for the entire year.
It is a very busy calendar we have in the Senate. It deals with
things that are of great urgency. When we return after the Easter
recess, we will have a supplemental appropriations bill for our troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very high priority. The Defense
authorization bill will follow; then a string of appropriations bills
that need to be enacted before we take our 4th of July break.
There is a lot to be done. I am hoping we can get it all done. But
the thought that we can carve out another week or two to return to
immigration at a later date may be fanciful. I am not sure we can
achieve that. This is the moment.
Tomorrow many Senators will come to the floor and decide whether they
will be part of history, whether they will cast a vote for cloture
which brings to the floor a definite deadline and timetable for
debating this comprehensive immigration reform.
It has been decades since we took this up seriously. We have spent a
lot of time. We have a strong bipartisan bill. We have a bill that is
supported by business and labor groups across America, including many
religious groups that have come forward and encouraged us to do this in
the name of humanity and of American values.
Tomorrow, with this cloture vote we will have a chance to be on the
Record for time immemorial as to where we stand on this issue.
Some have already decided to oppose this bill. They are going to,
postcloture. I understand that. But for those who think they can vote
against cloture and argue they were for this bill, they may have a
tough time describing that to the people back home.
I think about those I met this last week. I mentioned it earlier on
the floor. The students in the Catholic high school in Chicago are
following this debate every single day. They know their future is at
stake. These are children who came to the United States at an early age
because their parents decided to come here. They have lived here their
entire lives. They have gone to school here, lived in the neighborhoods
of America, and some have been extraordinary successes against great
odds. Their life's dream is the same dream those children have, to be a
part of America's future and do something good in their lives. They
will be denied that opportunity if the DREAM Act, which is part of this
bill, does not pass. They will be illegal and undocumented. If the
legal system catches up with them, it will tell them to return to a
country they cannot even remember. If it doesn't catch up to them, they
will continue to reside in the United States in undocumented and
illegal status, unable to get a driver's license in many States, unable
to be approved to be teachers and licensed to contribute to America,
unable to secure the important jobs that can make a difference in our
future. Their fate is tied to this bill.
Those who vote against cloture tomorrow have basically said we don't
need them; that we don't need to pass the DREAM Act; that these
children and their fate and their future is none of our business. I
think it is.
I think these young people, some of whom I was with this last
Saturday, are amazing. They have overcome the odds. They want to
contribute, have the chance every kid in America wants, to prove
themselves and have an opportunity to show they are worthy of American
citizenship. Why do we turn them down? Wouldn't we want to make certain
they have that chance? A vote for cloture tomorrow is going to give
them that chance. A vote against cloture will not.
There are many who will argue that they are against this bill. I hope
other amendments will be offered.
Senator Kennedy came to the floor earlier and said if you don't like
this bill, vote for cloture. Close down the amendments that can be
offered, limit the amount of debate and then vote against the bill, if
that is your wish. But give us a chance.
Tomorrow morning we will be asking for that chance from 60 Members of
the Senate which is necessary for that cloture motion to prevail.
Senator Kyl suggested that the only way to move forward to a vote on
this comprehensive package and the amendments is if his amendment is
voted on first. Senator Kyl was in discussion with me this morning and
acknowledged that we need to sit down and make some important changes
to the amendment which is presently before us. There are some parts
that are vague and uncertain. Lives hang in the balance.
I tried to make it clear to Senator Kyl there are ways he can use his
own language that he used in previous bills and tighten up the language
in his bill so there is no uncertainty and less vagueness. I am
prepared to sit down with him and the staff. I tried to reach him
during the course of the day. I know he is very busy. If he wants to
work to bring the language together on this amendment, I want to work
with him and hope we can find a way to strike some good language that
might be supported on both sides of the aisle.
I see the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the floor. I
will not miss this opportunity to say while I have the floor that I
respect him very much for what he has done in the committee, the hard
work in committee which I am proud to be part of. I thank him for his
hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. We have had a rocky
[[Page S2893]]
period of time during the amendment phase--not nearly as many
amendments as I would have liked to have seen called. But I hope after
the cloture vote tomorrow we can roll up our sleeves in the remaining
period of time and do the right thing, pass the Specter substitute with
some key amendments and show that this Senate is dedicated to true,
comprehensive immigration reform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the contribution the
distinguished Senator from Illinois has made to the Judiciary
Committee. When he says we have had a rocky time, he is a master of
understatement.
Again, he didn't hear my comment, like earlier today in responding to
one of his questions. He was conversing. So I will repeat this one.
When the distinguished Senator from Illinois says we have had a rocky
time on the amendments, he is a master of understatement.
I share his hope, although not much expectation, that we will be able
to complete action on this bill before we adjourn for the recess. The
Senate is a phenomenal institution, smarter than any of its Members or
the composite of all of its Members--not that that would necessarily
take a whole lot. But the Senate has functioned for a long time as an
institution where there seems to be a way to work through these issues
ultimately. If we cannot find that answer before we adjourn for the
recess, it is my hope we will find it shortly thereafter. This is an
issue and a problem which has to be addressed and has to be solved.
(The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
426 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it appears conclusively at this point
that we are not going to make any--I was about to say any more
progress. I can't say that because that suggests there has been some
progress. We can't make any progress on the immigration reform bill, so
that my colleagues will be aware that nothing further will happen on
that bill for the remainder of the evening. Hopefully, we can make some
progress overnight and in the morning on the proposed compromises so we
can have a fruitful day tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his good
work in producing a bill that has become the subject of debate in the
Senate dealing with a very important issue to our Nation, something
that people are extremely engaged in, one that has generated a lot of
debate and a lot of controversy around the country but clearly one that
needs to be addressed.
I have listened and observed as the debate has gone forward and
listened to the content of that debate over the past several days and
come to somewhat of an objective point of view because I come from a
State that is not a border State. We do not have to deal with the
issues on a daily basis affecting many of our States on the northern or
southern border.
Having said that, it is an issue which has captured the discussion
being held across this country even in States such as mine, the State
of South Dakota. The reason for that is very simple: People see day in
and day out some of the images broadcast across the television screen
and the people who come to the United States illegally. They deal with
the burden and cost associated with some of the public services
associated with illegal immigration in this country. So they view it
very much as taxpayers. They view it as an issue that, frankly, needs
to be addressed. They want to see the Senate act in an appropriate and
a timely way.
I have to say, too, I have heard a lot of people in the Senate
reference their ancestry. Various Members of the Senate have described
in detail how their ancestors came to this country, the personal
perspective they have on the issue, and the experiences that have
helped shed light and inform their opinions about it. I, too, am not
the exception to that. I have roots that go back, with a grandfather
that came here from Norway, back in 1906, along with my great-uncle
Matt, when they came through Ellis Island. The name that I now have,
the Thune name, was not their name. Their name was Gjelsvik. They came
through Ellis Island and the immigration officials asked them to change
their name because they thought it would be difficult for people in
these United States both to spell and pronounce. They did not speak a
word of English. I should say, almost no English. My understanding is
that when they boarded the train that took them to South Dakota, the
only English they knew were the words ``apple pie'' and ``coffee.'' So
they had a lot of apple pie and coffee between Ellis Island and South
Dakota.
They came to this country for the same reason that people all over
the world come to this country. I am very sympathetic to those who want
to come to the United States for everything that we stand for: for
opportunity, for freedom, to live the American dream.
My grandfather and my great-uncle came here and worked on the
railroads when they were building the Transcontinental Railroad into
South Dakota. They put their money together to start a merchandising
company that later became Thune Hardware. So they were small business
people in this country, something that so many people aspire to all
over the world. They want to come to the United States for the miracle
and for the dream that is America.
I am sympathetic to the history and the culture and the tradition we
have as a nation of being a welcoming country, a country that says to
bring your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I
approach the debate on immigration from that perspective, that context
of having a grandfather, one generation removed from me, who came to
this country for all the various reasons that people today continue to
want to flock to America.
As I have listened to the debate, I have tried to give consideration
to all the different perspectives that are presented. It seems to me,
at least as I try to make decisions about this, formed by my
constituents in South Dakota and formed by my experience, background,
and my history, to come to conclusions in the best interests of our
Nation, in the best interests of continuing that tradition of treating
those who come here fairly, but also the importance of American
principles.
One of those American principles is the rule of law. We are a nation
of laws, and that entails that we have to be able to enforce those
laws. If we cannot enforce those laws, if we are not going to apply and
adhere to those laws, those laws end up being pretty meaningless and
irrelevant in the long run. I come to this debate with some principles
in mind, not having drawn any hard conclusions on any specific piece of
legislation but wanting to see the Senate do its work, wanting to see
the Senate do what the people in this country expect us to do, and that
is to confront the big issues, to deal with the challenging issues, to
vote on the big issues, to bring resolution and clarity to the problems
and the challenges that face this country.
What is perplexing about what is happening in the Senate right now is
we have a base bill that has been reported out by the Judiciary
Committee. Granted, it may not be the perfect bill. Frankly, there are
many who would like to see that particular piece of legislation
amended. Many of us would like to vote on some of those types of
amendments that could be offered. Regrettably, the minority has decided
they are not going to allow votes on amendments, allegedly because they
are votes they do not want to put their Members in precarious political
situations, having to make votes on amendments they would rather not
vote on.
As a consequence, we are not having votes on amendments. We are just
basically blocking the whole substance of this debate from going
forward and the Senate from doing the work that the American people
expect us to do and, frankly, what the tradition and history of the
Senate would suggest that we ought to be doing; that is, amending this
base bill, having this debate, this discussion, allowing people with
different ideas and different perspectives and different points of view
to come in and offer their amendments, to have those amendments
debated, to have
[[Page S2894]]
people listen to that debate, and then come and vote on those
amendments so that eventually we can produce a product that is the
composite view of the Senate, reflective of a majority of the Senators.
What has happened in the Senate is the minority has decided, one, we
are not going to vote on amendments. If we do have any votes on
amendments, they will dictate what those amendments are that we will
vote on. So far as tomorrow, insisting on a cloture vote on the
underlying bill without having allowed any of the debate on any of the
amendments so that we have an opportunity for people to be heard,
people to offer their amendments, and people to improve, in their view,
in their particular point of view, the legislation before it is
ultimately passed out of the Senate and goes to conference with the
House and enacted into law.
The fundamental problem with the way the Senate is functioning in
this debate is that if we fail to allow individual Members to follow
what is the protocol of the Senate, what is the tradition of the
Senate, and that is the institution that allows for open debate, the
institution that allows for amendments to be offered to legislation,
for individual Senators to come over and to have their point of view
heard in that debate and offer amendments that are more reflective of
their particular idea about how this problem ought to be addressed or
this challenge ought to be met, we are undermining the basic foundation
of what this Senate and this institution is all about. But, more
importantly, we are keeping the people's business from being done.
We are, if we have this cloture vote tomorrow--and I suspect the
minority will insist on this cloture vote because they want to have a
vote on this bill without having any debate on any of the amendments
that our side wants to have votes on and report a bill out. You have
the minority of the Senate dictating the terms and conditions under
which we will have this debate, the amendments that will be voted on,
and, ultimately, the shape of the bill that will come out of here.
This side of the aisle, the majority, 55 Members of the Senate, want
to be heard on this issue, as well. What we need to understand is, yes,
there are rules that allow the Senate to slow things down, to allow for
extended debate on subjects, but ultimately we need to move the process
forward. That means voting on legislation.
We had a big debate in the last couple of years about inaction in the
Senate due to obstruction, due to blockage, due to dilatory tactics
employed by the minority. People have rejected that. People in this
country want action. They want action on this specific issue. This is
an issue that generates strong emotions all across the country.
Frankly, I believe the American people expect and they deserve better
than what they are getting from the minority in the Senate who have
insisted, again, that we not vote on amendments that the majority wants
to offer. Basically, we report the bill out, they dictate the bill that
passes the Senate.
That is not right. We have heard people get up on both sides today,
both Democrats and Republicans, and speak to this issue. We heard
earlier today the Democrats get up and say: We are not really trying to
block this. We are willing to vote on amendments--our amendments, just
not your amendments, not amendments that are offered by the majority
side in the Senate.
That is not to say they do not have some good ideas, but the truth
is, there is not a monopoly on good ideas on either the Republican or
Democrat side, and this Senate ought to be allowed to work in the way
it was intended to work. Republicans and Democrats can both offer their
amendments and they can both be voted on and we can shape the
legislation in a way that is reflective of the majority view in the
Senate.
Tomorrow we will have a cloture vote. It will fail because the
minority is going to insist we have a cloture vote. But no one on this
side is going to allow the minority to dictate the terms of this debate
or the amendments that ought to be considered or to block having votes
on amendments that the Republicans in the Senate would like to have
votes on.
As I said before, I tried to approach this debate in a very objective
way and, frankly, as I look at it, there are some very critical
components that need to be in a bill. First and foremost, border
security. As I said earlier, one of the reasons that America stands
unique in all the world is we are a nation of laws. We respect the rule
of law. It means something in America.
There are other places in the world where the rule of law does not
mean much, and tyrants and dictators come up with their own version of
what the laws are. Here in the United States, we have a Constitution.
We are a constitutional Republic. We have laws. We abide by those laws.
We need to enforce those laws.
We have not been doing the job we need to be doing of enforcing our
laws with respect to the borders, controlling the borders in this
country. That has all kinds of implications. This should not be lost on
the American people. One of the reasons people in South Dakota care
about this issue, even though we are not a border State is, they
understand, as I do, that controlling and protecting and securing our
borders is a matter of national security. Irrespective of where you
come from in the world, if you come to the United States--as I said
earlier, I have Norwegian ancestry, but if you have Hispanic ancestry,
European ancestry, Asian ancestry, whatever--when the terrorists come
across the border like they did on September 11 to destroy and kill
Americans, they do not discriminate about where that individual comes
from in the world. They want to kill Americans, pure and simple. I
don't care what your race or national origin, ethnicity is, flatly,
very simply, this is a matter of national security. And securing our
borders has to be the fundamental component around which we build this
debate.
That is one of the principles I come to the debate with. Again, I
have no previous position as we enter this debate about individual
pieces of legislation. I am listening to it. I will have the
opportunity, I hope, at some point, if the Democrats will allow us to,
to vote on amendments. But the reality is right now we are not having
that opportunity. Again, I simply say that as a matter of principle,
ultimately we need to report a bill out of here that does secure the
borders of the United States so that people in this country can know
with confidence and can trust that we are serious about keeping our
borders secure if for no other reason than as a matter of national
security.
Secondly, I would say, as a fundamental principle, we have to enforce
our laws. There has been a big debate about: What do you do about
people who are already here illegally? I think that is a very important
question in this debate. There are somewhere between 11 and 12 million
people, we are told, who have come to this country who are now here
illegally, and we have to figure out, from the standpoint of status,
how we deal with those people in this country.
But, again, a fundamental underlying principle ought to be that we
cannot reward illegal behavior. We want to reward legal behavior. We
want to reward people who came here and who followed the rules. I heard
lots of people get up and talk on the floor about their ancestry and
how they came to this country, but I suspect most of them, like my
grandfather and great-uncle, came here by the rules that were put in
place. They followed the law.
We want to encourage and provide incentives for that kind of
behavior. For people who want to come to America, we have a process by
which they can come here, but it is consistent with a set of rules and
laws we have in place. We have to make sure we are encouraging legal
behavior, that we are discouraging illegal behavior, that we are not
putting incentives in place for illegal behavior and, furthermore,
condoning or conferring benefits on people who systematically decide to
break the law.
So I happen to be of a view that I believe in a guest, temporary
worker program, perhaps some form of permanent resident status. But I
think, again, when you start talking about conferring the benefits of
citizenship on people in this country who are here illegally without
some sort of penalty for that--in other words, if we just wave our
magic wand and say anybody who is here can stay, and so be it, we have
done a disservice to our history and our traditions as a nation of
laws.
[[Page S2895]]
I think it is important we understand there needs to be consequences
to illegal behavior. We have talked about amnesty. It has been thrown
around a lot here. Essentially, what that means is there is no
consequence to behavior that is illegal. I think it is important we
make it fundamentally clear to people who do want to come to this
country that we are a nation, yes, of immigrants, we welcome people,
but we want people to come here according to the laws.
I would say that at the end of day, when this is all said and done,
again, we need to have votes because this is an issue that around the
country is generating tremendous heat, tremendous emotion, and has been
percolating for some time. As people look at the images on their
television of people who come here illegally, they are worried about
national security, they are worried about the economic consequences,
the consequences to the taxpayer of providing services to people who
are here illegally.
People want action. They want action by the U.S. Senate. I think we
have a responsibility, in this body, after everything is said and
done--and usually what happens in the Senate is more gets said than
done--but when everything is said and done, to come together on
legislation that would accomplish the goal; that is, to address the
issue of immigration in a way that is fair and in a way that is
consistent with our culture and our history and our tradition as a
welcoming country but is also consistent with our tradition as a nation
of laws. I believe we can come to that kind of a resolution here in the
Senate if--if--our colleagues on the other side will allow us to vote
on amendments.
Now, the Senator from Georgia, who is currently the Presiding Officer
in the Senate, has an amendment I would like to vote on. It is called
the trigger amendment. Basically, it says that until it is certified
that the borders are secure, then all these other issues we are talking
about with respect to this debate are just conversation; that, first
and foremost, we have to secure the borders, and it has to be certified
we have made the efforts, that we are serious about doing that. I think
it is a good approach. At least it ought to be an approach that is
voted on.
Now, our colleagues on the other side, the Democrats, do not want a
vote on the amendment of the Senator from Georgia because they do not
think that would be a good political vote for them. What it suggests to
me is we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are a lot
more concerned about having an issue, a political issue, than they are
about having a solution to this problem. What we need in the Senate are
more people on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, who will confront
this issue for what it is.
That is probably the most difficult, challenging issue that is facing
the country, on a domestic level at least, currently or for some time.
We are fighting a war on terror in Iraq. It has demanded a lot of
attention and a tremendous amount of resources. But when it comes to
domestic issues--and there are many. I am very interested in this body
working on issues. As we move forward throughout the year, we have
votes scheduled on health care reform because health care costs are
critical. We have to get that under control in this country.
We are going to have votes on extending some of the tax relief that
will allow the economy to continue to grow and to create jobs and to
make sure the economic engines are keeping this country moving forward.
We are going to have votes on those types of issues as we go forward.
And, of course, we are going to deal with the annual appropriations and
budget process, and a whole range of other issues before the year is
out.
They are important issues. They are all important to the American
public. But I would submit to you that right now there is no more
urgent issue, no issue that demands an answer, that demands a solution,
that demands action by the Senate than the issue of immigration.
And what is the Senate going to do? Are we going to move forward? Are
we going to, consistent with the tradition and the history of the
Senate, allow for debate and allow for votes on amendments or are the
Democrats, the minority in the Senate, going to continue to insist on
blocking amendments, votes on amendments, simply because they do not
want to vote on certain amendments because those amendments might be
tough political votes for them?
Well, we all make tough political votes. There are amendments they
are going to offer that I will not want to vote on. In fact, there may
be some amendments offered by colleagues on my side of the aisle that I
really do not want to vote on. But we are here to vote. That is what
people send us here to do. It is to do the people's business.
It is important we have the opportunity to deal with what is the most
important singular issue I think the American public is focused on
today and that they want us to deal with. It is the responsibility of
the Senate to debate--allow for extended debate--to consider
amendments, but ultimately to vote. That means voting on amendments
that are offered both by my colleagues on the Democratic side as well
as my colleagues on the Republican side, even if they are amendments
that I may not want to vote on.
I have to say again, there are amendments I probably would rather not
vote on, if I was thinking purely about the political consequences of
some of these votes. But the fact is, we are here to vote. We are here
to do the people's business. It is high time we did it.
I encourage and I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side to join
with my colleagues on the Republican side in putting aside the
politics, putting aside the delaying tactics, putting aside the
obstruction and the blocking of the agenda, and allow us to move
forward to vote on amendments and to report out of the Senate a bill--
and it may not be everything we want but allow this institution to act
in the manner in which the people of this country expect us to act,
and, frankly, in a way the American people deserve.
So I hope tomorrow will be the day we will break the logjam, that we
will be able to get a bill we can report that the Senate can take a
final vote on but that is reflective of the majority views in the
Senate, including an opportunity to vote on individual amendments and
to move this debate and this process forward so we can get into
conference with the House and shape a bill we can put on the
President's desk that will send a loud, clear message to the American
people we are serious about border security, we are serious about our
Nation's history as a nation, a welcoming culture, a nation of
immigrants, but we are serious about enforcing the rule of law in
America.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator yields back.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 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. FRIST. 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. FRIST. Mr. President, as a prelude, we have a number of requests
and items of business to take care of. I will explain here shortly.
Motion to Commit
Mr. President, I move to commit the bill to the Judiciary Committee
to report back forthwith with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] moves to commit the
bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to
report back forthwith the following amendment No. 3424.
Mr. FRIST. I now ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 3425
Mr. FRIST. I send a first-degree amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an
amendment numbered 3425 to the instructions to the motion to
commit.
[[Page S2896]]
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the instructions, add the following
amendment:
This section shall become effective one (1) day after the
date of enactment.
Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 3426 to Amendment No. 3425
Mr. FRIST. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an
amendment numbered 3426 to amendment No. 3425.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike ``one (1) day'' and insert ``two days''.
cloture motion
Mr. FRIST. I send a cloture motion to the desk on the pending motion
to commit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
motion to commit S. 2454, the Securing America's Borders Act.
Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Michael B. Enzi, Lindsey
Graham, Trent Lott, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Mitch
McConnell, George V. Voinovich, Mel Martinez, Lamar
Alexander, Norm Coleman, Pete Domenici, Orrin Hatch,
David Vitter, Johnny Isakson, Jim DeMint.
Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry: Does this mean there are no other
amendments in order? I couldn't file another amendment now, could I?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is correct. At this moment in time,
you would not. If we were allowed to go ahead on the amendments, and
once we start disposing of the amendments, this is something that would
be in order.
Mr. REID. I was curious why we aren't able to offer any amendments at
this time, but we can talk about that tomorrow.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the point is well made.
Cloture Motion
I send a cloture motion to the underlying bill to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
376, S. 2454, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide for comprehensive reform, and for other
purposes.
Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell, Pete Domenici,
R.F. Bennett, Jim Talent, Craig Thomas, Elizabeth Dole,
Conrad Burns, Jim DeMint, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny
Isakson, Ted Stevens, Wayne Allard, Norm Coleman, Trent
Lott, John Thune.
Mr. FRIST. All right. Mr. President, what we have just done, so our
colleagues will understand, is as follows: Tomorrow morning,
notwithstanding the fact we have yet to vote on even the very first
amendment offered, we will have a cloture vote that--
Mr. DURBIN. We have adopted three.
Mr. FRIST. I will stand corrected. No, I will not stand corrected. On
the very first amendment that was offered we still have not had a vote.
And, yes, there have been several other amendments that have been
addressed. We will have a cloture vote, which was filed by the minority
leader, on the underlying Specter substitute amendment, and that will
be the first vote tomorrow morning.
I suspect that cloture vote will fail. And we have been very clear
about our desire on this side to consider amendments from Senators on
both sides of the aisle and our willingness for votes. We discussed
that over the course of the day. It appears that this will not be
likely and, therefore, we will be prevented from making any real
progress on the bill.
So moments ago I offered a motion to commit, which incorporates an
amendment by Senators Hagel and Martinez and others who have been
working on this amendment over the course of the day. The fact that
those cloture motions were filed tonight means that we would have the
cloture vote on that motion on Friday. And depending on the outcome of
that cloture motion, we could have a second cloture vote on the
underlying bill, the so-called Frist bill, as well.
So we will have the Specter cloture vote tomorrow morning, and then
one or possibly two other cloture votes on Friday morning.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FRIST. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished
majority leader, I would hope, the amendment--we have a general idea
what it is about--I would hope this amendment is one, as it has been
related to me, that is such that it improves the underlying Specter
substitute, that it deals with only the legalization process.
I would hope, after Senators and staff pursue that amendment in
detail tonight, that it is something we could all support and move on
to completing the bill as soon as germane amendments were offered and
debated and voted upon.
It would be great if we could end this very acrimonious week on a
high note. And we will not know that until we study this amendment. We
are hearing of a lot of things that are in it and not in it. So time
will only tell.
I would say, through the Chair to the majority leader, because we
have already had phone calls in the last half hour or so from
Senators--they have asked me, as the distinguished majority leader did
earlier today, if I would agree to earlier cloture votes. I do not know
what the pleasure is of the Senator from Tennessee, if you want to wait
until Friday, or you want to try to complete this tomorrow.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair--and we had discussed the
possibility of that a little earlier--I think it is best for us to make
that decision tomorrow, only because the Hagel-Martinez amendment is a
negotiated compromise amendment that none of our colleagues have had
the opportunity to really see yet.
I have had numerous phone calls over the course of tonight as well. I
think it is important people have the opportunity to look at that
carefully tomorrow and see how much time it takes for people to have
both the opportunity to look at it themselves, as well as their staff.
We ought to keep that potential on the table.
Mr. REID. So unless there is some agreement, the two cloture votes
would begin occurring an hour after we come in on Friday.
Mr. FRIST. Through the Chair, that is correct.
Mr. REID. Is that right, I say to the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. FRIST. There may be some other cloture motions to consider on
Friday, which I will come to here shortly.
____________________