[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 43 (Thursday, April 6, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3167-S3199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2454, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Specter/Leahy amendment No. 3192, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Kyl/Cornyn amendment No. 3206 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     make certain aliens ineligible for conditional nonimmigrant 
     work authorization and status.
       Cornyn amendment No. 3207 (to amendment No. 3206), to 
     establish an enactment date.
       Isakson amendment No. 3215 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     demonstrate respect for legal immigration by prohibiting the 
     implementation of a new alien guest worker program until the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to the President and 
     the Congress that the borders of the United States are 
     reasonably sealed and secured.
       Dorgan amendment No. 3223 (to amendment No. 3192), to allow 
     United States citizens under 18 years of age to travel to 
     Canada without a passport, to develop a system to enable 
     United States citizens to take 24-hour excursions to Canada 
     without a passport, and to limit the cost of passport cards 
     or similar alternatives to passports to $20.
       Mikulski/Warner amendment No. 3217 (to amendment No. 3192), 
     to extend the termination date for the exemption of returning 
     workers from the numerical limitations for temporary workers.
       Santorum/Mikulski amendment No. 3214 (to amendment No. 
     3192), to designate Poland as a program country under the 
     visa waiver program established under section 217 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
       Nelson (FL) amendment No. 3220 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     use surveillance technology to protect the borders of the 
     United States.
       Sessions amendment No. 3420 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 3192), of a perfecting nature.
       Nelson (NE) amendment No. 3421 (to amendment No. 3420), of 
     a perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time between 
9:30 and 10:30 will be equally divided between the managers or their 
designee.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning, the time until 10:30 will be 
equally divided for debate prior to the vote on invoking cloture on the 
Specter substitute to the border security bill. I now ask unanimous 
consent that the final 20 minutes before the vote be divided so that 
the Democratic leader has 10 minutes, to be followed by the majority 
leader for the final 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I don't believe that cloture will be 
invoked today on the chairman's substitute. Therefore, we have two 
additional cloture motions pending to the border security bill. There 
is a cloture motion to the Hagel-Martinez language that was offered 
yesterday and a cloture motion to the underlying border security bill. 
We will announce the exact timing of those votes a little later as we 
go through the morning and see how we progress. It is unfortunate that 
we had to set up these procedural challenges, but given the lack of 
progress and cooperation on getting amendments up and voted on, it was 
the only way to move ahead.
  We have very important Department of Defense nominations that have 
been pending on the calendar since last

[[Page S3168]]

year. I have consulted with the Democratic leader, and I have scheduled 
cloture votes on those nominations this week to allow the Senate to 
vote on these important Department of Defense nominees.
  Needless to say, we have a lot to do before the Easter-Passover 
adjournment.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a 
quorum so the leader and I may speak for a couple minutes before the 
debate starts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the time on our side be divided between 
Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Kennedy, each 8 minutes; Senators Salazar 
and Menendez, each 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. It has already been suggested by the Republican leader that 
our time would follow the hour time that is allotted under the rule, a 
half hour on each side, and then I would speak, and then the 
distinguished Republican leader would end the debate. Is that 
appropriate?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed that the Senator 
from Nevada, the distinguished Democratic leader, has suggested more 
time than is available to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes 
for me and the 10 minutes for the majority leader be under leader time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. And I ask unanimous consent that the time not start running 
until we finish our personal colloquy.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There is now 60 minutes equally divided. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today the Senate has a historic 
opportunity with this cloture vote to move forward with tough, smart, 
and comprehensive immigration reform that secures our Nation's borders 
or to maintain the status quo of failed laws and a broken immigration 
system that is weak on enforcement and leaves our borders and our 
citizens unsecured.
  A vote for invoking cloture is a vote for an increase of 1,250 
Customs and Border Protection officers, 2,500 port-of-entry inspectors, 
1,000 personnel dedicated to the investigation of alien smuggling, 
25,000 investigators, 12,000 new Border Patrol agents, 10,000 worksite 
enforcement agents, 5,000 fraud detection agents, and the acquisition 
of 20 new detention facilities to accommodate at least 10,000 detainees 
to ensure that we have tightened our border security and workplace 
enforcement.
  A vote for invoking cloture is a vote to create an equal playing 
field and ensure that American workers' wages, benefits and health and 
safety standards are not undercut.
  A vote for invoking cloture is also a vote to realize the economic 
realities in our society in which undocumented workers are bending 
their backs every day, picking the fruits and vegetables that end up on 
our kitchen tables, digging the ditches that lay the infrastructure for 
the future, cleaning the hotel and motel rooms for our travelers, 
plucking the chicken or deboning the meat that we had for dinner last 
night, and helping the aged, the sick and disabled meet their daily 
needs.
  This vote ensures that they are brought out of the darkness and into 
the light of America's promise. A vote for invoking cloture is a vote 
to create the possibility for those who contribute to our country a 
pathway to earn legalization--but only after they pay thousands of 
dollars in fines and fees, pass a criminal background check, go to the 
back of the line behind all applicants waiting for green cards, pay any 
and all back taxes, remain continuously employed going forward, pass a 
medical exam, and learn English and U.S. History and Government.
  A vote for cloture gives us greater security. But unlike the House 
bill, it doesn't criminalize innocent U.S. citizens--those, for 
example, like Catholic Charities--who give advice to immigrants, like 
those who give help to a rape victim or a battered woman. That is why I 
urge our colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the Judiciary 
Committee bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time? If no Senator seeks time, the time is charged against each side 
equally.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during the quorum call be equally divided, and I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
invoke cloture on the Specter substitute amendment. I do so because of 
several key reasons. First, the legislation that came out of the 
Judiciary Committee had broad bipartisan support. I think when you have 
that kind of bipartisan support, it speaks to what we can do as a 
Senate when we reach across the aisle to try to find common ground. I 
think the Judiciary Committee found that common ground.
  Second, the bill addresses the key issues we should be addressing in 
the Senate today. It addresses border security, which is critically 
important to us, that we deal with trying to strengthen our homeland 
defenses and our national security. It addresses the issue of 
enforcement of immigration laws in our country. It also addresses the 
economic and human realities of undocumented workers that we have in 
America today.
  It is a good bill from that perspective. It is a law and order bill. 
For those on the other side who say this is amnesty, I reject that 
labeling. It has penalties and registration that go along with the 
requirement for those people who are undocumented and working in the 
United States.
  Finally, no matter how this cloture vote goes--and I intend to vote 
for cloture because it is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
for cloture--we need to continue to work on this issue because it is so 
important to the future of America. We have a reality in our country 
today; where we have broken borders and lawlessness, we need to restore 
some order and regularity to our immigration system. This issue is too 
important for us to simply walk away.
  I hope we will continue to work through this issue and come up with 
the kind of wisdom that Solomon would bring to a very important 
national issue, so we can get some kind of resolution that addresses 
the concerns of all of those who are so affected by our immigration 
laws.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I began this debate by praising the 
bipartisanship of the Judiciary Committee for reporting a comprehensive 
and realistic immigration bill to the Senate. I have said from the 
outset that Democratic Senators could not pass a good immigration bill 
on our own. With fewer than 50 Democratic Senators, we will need the 
support of Republican Senators if the Senate is to make progress on 
this important matter today.
  With all the dramatic stagecraft of the last few days and the 
protestations from the other side of the aisle it may seem surprising, 
but the truth is that by invoking cloture on this bill, we move to 
consideration of germane amendments. If the Kyl amendment is germane 
and pending, it would be in line for a vote. So much for all the 
bluster and false claims of Democratic obstruction we have heard. If 
Republicans want to move forward on this debate, and get one step 
closer to a vote on tough but fair immigration reform, they should 
support cloture. For the past few days, I have offered, and our 
leadership has offered, to take up a number of bipartisan amendments 
for debate and votes that would have easily won the support of the 
Senate. It

[[Page S3169]]

was Senator Kyl who objected to that progress.
  Late last night, the Republican leader came to the floor to file a 
motion that would require the Senate to send the immigration bill back 
to the committee. He immediately acted to ``fill the tree,'' a 
parliamentary procedure that means that none of us could offer 
amendments, and he filed an immediate cloture motion.
  So before any of us even saw the amendment, the Republican leader 
made sure to prevent any Senator in this body from offering an 
amendment of his or her own. It is somewhat ironic, after all of the 
posturing by Republicans over the past 2 days about the right of 
Senators to offer amendments and be heard, that the Republican Party 
has returned full force to its standard practice of shutting out those 
who might disagree. That is too bad, especially on a matter this 
important. We began with a high level of demonstrated bipartisanship. 
Senator Specter and I worked together to get a bill out that had a two-
thirds majority of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, 
voting for it.

  The majority leader had set March 27 as the deadline for Judiciary 
Committee action, and we met his deadline. I always understood that the 
majority leader had committed to turn to the committee bill if we were 
able to meet his deadline. That is what I heard the Judiciary Committee 
chairman reiterate as we concluded our markup and heard him say, again, 
as the Senate debate began. The Democratic leader noted that we had 
agreed to proceed based on the assurances he had received that ``the 
foundation of the Senate's upcoming debate on immigration policy will 
be the bipartisan Committee bill.''
  The majority leader had often spoken of allowing two full weeks for 
Senate debate of this important matter. Regrettably, what the majority 
leader said and what happened are not the same. The Senate did not 
complete work on the lobbying reform bill on schedule and that cut into 
time for this debate. When the majority leader decided to begin the 
debate with a day of discussion of the Frist bill, we lost more time. 
We were left then with 1 week, not 2. We have lost time that could have 
been spent debating and adopting amendments when some Republicans 
withheld consent from utilizing our usual procedures over the last 
days. When the false and partisan charges of obstruction came from the 
other side, the Democratic leader filed a petition for cloture that I 
hope will bring successful action on a comprehensive, realistic and 
fair immigration bill.
  So I regret that now, when we have a bill with strong bipartisan 
support, some would try to make this into a partisan fight. I fear that 
they have succeeded in making a partisan fight over a bill that began 
as a bipartisan bill. I urge all Senators, Republicans, Democrats and 
the Senate's Independent, to vote for cloture on the bipartisan 
committee bill and bring this debate to a successful conclusion so that 
we can have a bill passed by the Senate by the end of this week.
  This is an historic vote. It asks us whether the Senate is committed 
to forging real immigration reform. I urge all Senators to vote for 
reform by supporting this cloture motion on what is a bipartisan bill 
that balances tough enforcement with human dignity.
  Now, the Republican manager of the bill was right to take on the 
smear campaign against the committee bill from opponents who falsely 
labeled it amnesty. The committee bill is not an amnesty bill. 
President Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986. This is not. This is a 
tough bill with a realistic way to strengthen our security and border 
enforcement, while bringing people out of the shadows to earn 
citizenship--not immediate citizenship; it still takes 11 years. They 
have to pay fines, work, pay taxes, they have to learn English, and 
then they have to swear allegiance to the United States. That is a long 
way from amnesty.
  As the New York Times noted in an editorial, responding to those who 
falsely smeared this as an amnesty bill, painting the word ``deer'' on 
a cow and taking it into the woods does not make the cow into a deer. 
This is something every deer hunter in Vermont knows.
  It is most ironic to hear those in the Republican Congress talk about 
amnesty and lack of responsibility. Their record over the last 6 years 
is a failure to require responsibility and accountability, or to serve 
as a check and balance. They are experts in amnesty, so they should 
know this bill is not amnesty.
  I was glad to hear the Republican leader begin to change his tune 
over this week and acknowledge that providing hard-working neighbors 
with a path to citizenship is not amnesty. I have not had an 
opportunity to see, let alone review, the Republican instructions in 
the motion filed late last night. I am advised that they now have a 
proposal to establish a path for citizenship for some of the 
undocumented. I guess other Republicans will falsely label that effort 
as ``amnesty for some.''
  Tragically, however, the opponents of tough and smart comprehensive 
immigration reform will not stop with smearing the bill. Some who have 
opposed it have used ethnic slurs with respect to outstanding Members 
of the Senate. I spoke about this yesterday, when I praised Senator 
Salazar. His family's is a distinguished record that should not need my 
defense. I deplore the all-too-typical tactics of McCarthyism and 
division to which our opponents have resorted, again. This is an issue 
that goes to the heart and soul and conscience of the Senate. When 
people who disagree with Members of this body resort to ethnic or 
religious slurs, we all ought to stand up and condemn it. I did so on 
the floor of the Senate yesterday.
  I recall the wisdom of Senator Ralph Flanders, the first one to have 
the courage to stand up to Joseph McCarthy. We are now facing in this 
country a religious and ethnic McCarthyism. I wish one Republican would 
stand up--just one--and say they agree that we should not have such 
religious and ethnic slurs on Members of the Senate just because of 
disagreement with a position they have taken on the bill. Regrettably, 
no one did. It is beneath the dignity and honor of this great body and 
beneath the dignity and honor of any Member of the body. I, again, 
thank Senator Salazar, Senator Menendez, Senator Obama, and Senator 
Martinez for their support of the committee bill and their 
participation in this debate.
  The Specter-Leahy-Hagel substitute amendment that mirrors the 
Judiciary Committee bill confronts the challenging problem of how to 
fix our broken immigration system head on. It is strong on 
enforcement--stronger than the majority leader's bill. In some ways it 
is stronger than the bill passed by the House. It includes provisions 
added by Senator Feinstein to make tunneling under our borders a 
federal crime and increases the number of enforcement agents. It is 
tough on employer enforcement and tough on traffickers. But it is also 
comprehensive and balanced. I have called it enforcement ``plus'' 
because it confronts the problem of the millions of undocumented who 
live in the shadows. It values work and respects human dignity. It 
includes guest worker provisions supported by business and labor and a 
fair path to earned citizenship over 11 years through fines, the 
payment of taxes, hard work and learning English that has the support 
of religious and leading Hispanic organizations. It includes the AgJOBS 
bill and the DREAM Act, the Frist amendment, the Bingaman enforcement 
amendment, and the Alexander citizenship amendment.
  Wisely, we have rejected the controversial provisions that would have 
exposed those who provide humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, 
counseling and other basic services to the undocumented to possible 
prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions of the criminal 
law. And we have rejected the proposal to criminalize mere presence in 
an undocumented status in the United States, which would trap people in 
a permanent underclass. Those provisions of the bill supported by 
congressional Republicans have understandably sparked nationwide 
protests because they are viewed as anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant 
and are inconsistent with American values.

  Our work on immigration reform has been called a defining moment in 
our history. The Senate, in its best moments, has been able to rise to 
the occasion and act as the conscience to the

[[Page S3170]]

Nation, in the best true interests of our Nation.
  I hope that the Senate's work on immigration reform will be in 
keeping with the best the Senate can offer the Nation. I hope that our 
work will be something that would make not only my immigrant 
grandparents proud--and I stand only one generation from my immigrant 
grandparents--but a product that will make our children and 
grandchildren proud as they look back on this debate. Now is the time 
and this is the moment for the Senate to come together to do its part 
and reject the calls to partisanship.
  Now is the time to move forward with the bipartisan committee bill as 
our framework so that we can bring millions of people out of the 
shadows and end the permanent underclass status of so many who have 
contributed so much. By voting for cloture, we will take a giant step 
toward better protecting our security and borders and allowing the 
American dream to become a reality for our hard-working neighbors. 
History will judge. The time is now.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I asked Senator Leahy to take my place in 
the chair because I want to show that a Republican agrees with him, in 
part. I do support the statements made by the Senator from Vermont 
concerning the derogatory statements that may have been made concerning 
any racial connections with this bill.
  However, I cannot support cloture on the bill because it still 
contains the provisions with regard to felons. The amendment we tried 
to vote on the other day, I am informed, is probably not possible to 
consider if we vote cloture on this bill at this time. So I regret that 
I cannot support cloture. I stated that I would vote for cloture on the 
bill as it came from the Judiciary Committee. Under the circumstances, 
once it was discovered, with the provisions with regard to prior 
convictions for felonies, I supported that amendment the other day by 
voting not to table it. I believe that amendment should be considered 
before we vote cloture on this bill.
  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. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I believe time has been allocated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 8 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair remind me when there is 2 minutes 
remaining?
  Madam President, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a strong 
bipartisan, comprehensive reform bill last week, and Members on this 
side of the aisle believe it deserves an up-or-down vote on its own 
terms. Unfortunately, we have gotten bogged down instead on procedural 
issues. But the vote we cast this morning for or against cloture is not 
just a procedural vote; the vote we cast today is a vote on how to 
reconcile America's history and its heritage as a nation of immigrants 
with today's crisis of undocumented immigration.
  It has been said many times--and it bears repeating--all in this room 
are descended from immigrants. Immigrants signed the Declaration of 
Independence and they wrote the Constitution of these United States. 
Immigrants settled our frontiers, they built our great cities, and they 
fueled our industrial revolution.
  Our history is a nation of immigrants, but that history has a dark 
side as well. Millions of Africans were brought here in chains, 
immigrants in a technical sense, but forced for generations to labor as 
slaves, our great national shame. Millions of other immigrants fared 
only slightly better: the Chinese coolies, who worked 18 to 20 hours a 
day to build our railroads under deplorable conditions; the Mexican 
braceros, who were actively recruited by the United States Government 
to labor in our fields but were systematically denied fair payment for 
their work; and today the undocumented immigrants who are exploited at 
the workplace and live with their families in constant fear of 
detection and deportation.
  For decades, this country has turned a blind eye to the plight of the 
stranger in our midst and looked away in indifference from this 
grotesque system. But a nation of immigrants rejects its history and 
its heritage when millions of immigrants are confined forever to 
second-class status.
  All Americans are debased by such a two-tier system. The vote we cast 
today is on whether the time has come to right these historic wrongs, 
and we will have that opportunity to do so with the underlying bill.
  Over these past days, it has become apparent to Senator McCain, 
myself, and the others who are in active support of this legislation 
that adjustments are going to have to be made in that legislation to 
gain strong bipartisan support that will reflect greater than 60 votes 
in the Senate. I am convinced a majority in the Senate supports our 
particular proposal.
  As I have spoken on other occasions, this is a composite of different 
actions that is in the interest of our national security, our economic 
progress, and our sense of humanity. But we understand adjustments have 
to be made, and over the last few days, Democrats and Republicans in 
the leadership have been coming together to try and find common ground.
  There are those who believe we ought to treat undocumented aliens as 
a particular group and treat them all the same. There are others who 
say those who have just arrived here should be treated differently and 
under different circumstances. We have been attempting to adjust those 
different views, and I believe we have made important progress in a way 
that will maintain the integrity of the legislation but also will mean 
perhaps a somewhat longer period of time for adjusting of status or 
earning citizenship for those who have more recently arrived.
  There has been a strong, good-faith effort on both sides to try and 
find this common ground. I am very grateful for the leadership our 
leaders have provided on our side--Senator Reid, Senator Leahy, and 
others who have worked in this endeavor. I thank my friend and 
colleague Senator McCain and a number of his associates--Mel Martinez 
and a number of others--who have worked to try and move this process 
forward.
  I hope the vote on cloture will be successful, but I recognize fully 
that if we are not successful, it is going to open up a new opportunity 
for us to finally realize the legislation which will essentially 
preserve the fundamental integrity of the approach Senator McCain and I 
have taken. It will provide some differences, and out of accommodation 
and in the desire and interest to achieve the underlying thrust of this 
legislation, I urge our colleagues to support those compromises. It is 
in our best interest. Then I am confident that we can, before the end 
of this week, report out legislation that will be comprehensive and 
will meet the challenges of our time.
  Finally, we have come together--Republicans and Democrats--in other 
major civil rights times. We came together in the 1960s with the 1964 
Civil Rights Act, 1965 and 1968 Civil Rights Act. We all came together 
on the Medicare and Medicaid proposals. We came together, as well, on 
higher education legislation that made such a difference. And we came 
together on the Americans with Disabilities Act. We haven't had that 
kind of coming together in this body on a matter of national importance 
and international importance. We may very well be at that moment in the 
Senate. I am prayerful that will be the outcome and that we will have 
that kind of achievement. We still have some hurdles to work through, 
but I hope that will be the final and ultimate outcome.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.

[[Page S3171]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I might say to my colleagues who would 
like some time, we have 25 minutes. They are invited to come to the 
floor and speak. I think we will have time to extend to a number of 
Members.
  I am pleased to note we have made some significant progress, although 
we do not have the bill in a position yet where we know precisely where 
we are heading, but it now appears we will be successful with the 
addition of the ideas which have been injected into the process by 
Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez.
  We will be coming up on a cloture vote on the committee bill shortly. 
I would very much like to see the committee bill move forward, but I do 
not think it is fair to have cloture on the committee bill without 
giving Senators an opportunity to offer amendments.
  We have been on this measure since last Wednesday, and we have had 
very few amendments offered. The Senators--principally Republican 
Senators--who have come to the floor to offer amendments have been 
prevented from doing so by parliamentary rules. I acknowledge that 
those who have stopped us from offering amendments are operating within 
the rules, but I do not think within the spirit of the Senate, which is 
to have a committee bill, have it open for amendments, have the 
amendments debated, and have the amendments voted on--that is the way 
the Senate works, but that has not been the result here.
  Had that been the case, had Senators been permitted to offer their 
amendments in due course and have an opportunity to follow the 
customary procedure, then I would have been an advocate of cloture to 
move the process along. But that has not been the case.
  Unusual as it may seem for the chairman of the committee bill to 
oppose cloture on that bill, that is the position I am taking because 
there has not been an opportunity to vote on amendments.
  We have, in any event, progressed beyond this point so that we now 
have another bill which has been committed to the committee, and we are 
having a cloture vote in due course scheduled for tomorrow. Perhaps 
that cloture vote could occur today; I don't know. But if we can see 
where we are heading, it would obviously be desirable to move the 
process along as promptly as possible.

  The ideas advanced by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez make changes 
in the committee bill by having a distinction between those who have 
been here for more than 5 years, where they will work for 6 years and 
be entitled to a green card, contrasted with those who have been here 
for less than 5 years but more than 2 years from the date of January 7, 
2004, which is the date established by the date President Bush made a 
major speech on advancing ideas on immigration reform. Those who have 
been in the country prior to January 7, 2004, but for less than 5 
years, will be on a slightly different track, where they can be here 
for 6 years and have 1-year extensions, and their ability for green 
cards will depend upon the cap not having been reached so that they are 
at the end of the line, in any event, from those who have had their 
applications pending. Some of the nurse applications for visas from the 
Philippines go back to 1983, and one of the additions made in the 
committee mark was to see to it that those 11 million undocumented 
aliens would not come ahead of people who have been following the law 
and who have been in line.
  There is another modification on the temporary workers--if the green 
cards are reduced from 400,000 to 325,000, with an effort being made 
not to take away jobs from Americans, to limit that number to try to 
reflect the need for immigrant workers but to reduce it to that extent. 
We are still working on some refinements so that if the unemployment 
rate is high in certain cities, the number of green cards may be 
reduced there; again, so that employers cannot bring in immigrant 
workers where American workers are involved.
  We have, obviously, a very complicated system, but the work has been 
prodigious. There have been quite a number of Democrats who have met 
with quite a number of Republicans. My own view has been to try to be 
flexible. If I had my choice, I would have the original chairman's 
mark, the mark that I put down as chairman. But that was modified 
significantly in the committee, taking up other provisions of the 
McCain-Kennedy bill, and other amendments which were offered. As 
chairman, I tried to structure an accommodation among all of the bills: 
the Hagel bill, the McCain-Kennedy bill, the Kyl-Cornyn bill. We came 
very close in the markup a week ago Monday to an accommodation somewhat 
similar to what we have reached now, but we couldn't make it in 
committee, so we have come forward with the committee bill. If I had my 
choice, to repeat, I would want the chairman's mark. My second choice 
is the committee bill. I am not wildly enthusiastic about the changes 
made in Hagel-Martinez. But where we are with the changes made by 
Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez is better than where we are now; it 
is better than no bill.
  What we are dealing with here, as we inevitably and invariably do on 
legislation, is finding the best compromise we can pass. The issue is 
whether that bill is better than no bill. I think, for me, that bill is 
decisively better than no bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, would the chairman yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me first thank the chairman for his due diligence. 
There is no question that he has focused on this for a good many months 
and has tried to work us through a process of time and issue. The 
Senator is so right in talking about all of the complications involved: 
the types of labor, qualifications, and all that is necessary to deal 
with this in a responsible way, and to contain our borders and to 
control them. And without that, no orderly process will ever happen 
effectively.
  As the chairman knows, I have spent a good deal of time on this 
issue, somewhat focused on a segment of our economy in agriculture. To 
your knowledge, as it relates to the compromise you are talking about 
that may be struck and has taken form here in the last 24 hours, is the 
agricultural provisions that we--myself, working with a member of your 
committee, Senator Feinstein--worked to put in the bill that came out 
of committee, is that still the provision that is in place as we know 
it and as we would vote on it?
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I respond to the distinguished Senator 
from Idaho in the affirmative. It is intact. The reduction in green 
cards and visas from 400,000 to 325,000 may impact on that to some 
extent. But the amendment which was offered by Senator Feinstein, who 
is on the committee and on which you were a collaborator--and I again 
congratulate you on that, as I did in committee when we accepted the 
amendment--is intact. It is a very important amendment, worked out very 
carefully. You have been working on this for years--you can say how 
many years--but it has been a very long haul.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for that response. Every employment 
sector is unique, and what we have found, and I think what the 
committee has found, is that agriculture, because of the type of labor 
involved, is kind of the entry door many of our migrant laborers come 
through, legal and illegal, and from that, if you will, learn and move 
to other segments of the economy.
  So we tried to reflect that in the structure of the Feinstein 
amendment to the bill, recognizing that other portions of the bill 
would be different, and that the compromise that is being talked about, 
in my opinion, makes some sense as it relates to seniority and time and 
place to work in a fair and responsible way. At the same time, it makes 
sure that we don't effectively damage these segments of the economy 
Americans will not work in, choose not to work in, and that we find 
foreign nationals can and will and are very effective in their work 
there.
  I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes on the Republican side.

[[Page S3172]]

  Mr. SPECTER. Again, I invite my colleagues if they wish to comment to 
come to the floor. There is time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is a historic moment in the Senate. 
These who are witnessing this debate may think it is just another 
debate on another bill, but it is not. This is a debate that has been 
in the brewing--at least in the making, I should say--for decades. 
Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts has been speaking out about meaningful 
immigration reform for decades. It has eluded us. There are times when 
we have done temporary things of some value, but we have never come to 
grips with the fact that the immigration laws in America have broken 
down. We are in virtual chaos. Borders are out of control, employers 
are hiring people without adequate enforcement, and there are 11 
million or 12 million amongst us who are in undocumented or illegal 
status, uncertain of their future.

  This is controversial. We have to come to grips with it. But it is 
rare in the history of the Senate that we consider a bill that touches 
so many hearts and changes so many lives in America as this immigration 
reform. We are literally going to define America's future with this 
bill. We are going to make it clear whether we are going to hold to the 
values that have made us a great and diverse nation.
  There are people amongst us, some you may see and not know--people 
you sit next to in church; families who bring their children to school 
with your children; the worker at the daycare center where you leave 
your precious kids every morning; the practical nurse who is working at 
a nursing home caring for your aging parent; the people who cooked your 
breakfast this morning at the restaurant, who cleared the table; those 
who will straighten your room after you leave the hotel--many of them 
you may not know, but look closely. Many of them will be directly 
affected by what we do in this Senate Chamber. What we do will change 
their lives. What we do will give them a chance to come out of the 
shadows, to emerge from the fear of detection, to finally have a chance 
to be part of America. We don't make it easy for them. It is a long, 
hard process to move from where they are today to legal status 
tomorrow, but at least we are addressing it and doing it in an honest 
fashion.
  This morning's vote on cloture is on a bill which I think is the best 
approach. That is why I will vote for cloture. Some will disagree. But 
we know, even as I stand here, there is another agreement underway. It 
is promising. It embodies the basic principles of the bill that emerged 
from the Senate Judiciary Committee. That bill included the Kennedy-
McCain substitute, an approach which offers a pathway to legalization 
for the millions who are here in America.
  I salute Senator Specter who spoke before me. He was one of the four 
Republicans who stood with eight Democrats to bring that bill out. It 
was not a popular position on his side of the table. The majority of 
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee oppose this bill. When it 
came to the floor, the leaders on the Republican side of the Senate 
condemned the bill. Yet today we find ourselves in a much different 
place.
  I give special credit to my leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. In 
the beginning of this week he said, We are going to stand fast for the 
values and principles of this bipartisan bill. He has taken a lot of 
heat on the floor of the Senate and outside, resisting amendments that 
would cripple and destroy this process and derail our efforts to 
finally have comprehensive immigration reform. Were it not for Senator 
Harry Reid on the Democratic side of this aisle standing fast, I don't 
know that we could have reached the point we have reached today. But we 
have reached it, and it tells me that we finally have come together in 
a bipartisan fashion to deal with an issue that affects so many 
millions across this country.
  It is not over. Even if the cloture vote, as we call it in the 
Senate, passes tomorrow on the compromise, this can still be derailed. 
There are still Senators, primarily on the other side of the aisle, 
determined to derail this agreement. They will offer crippling, 
devastating amendments. We need to stand fast on a bipartisan basis to 
resist those amendments. Those who pledge their fealty to this bill can 
prove it with their votes. Don't say you are for it today and vote for 
a devastating amendment tomorrow.
  Secondly, what we decide here will go to a conference with the House. 
The House approach is so different and it is so wrong. The House 
Republican immigration bill by Chairman Sensenbrenner does not reflect 
American values. To say that 12 million amongst us will be branded as 
felons under the Federal law, to say that Good Samaritans, nurses and 
teachers and volunteers and people of faith, will be charged as 
criminals under the Federal law is unthinkable and unacceptable and is 
not consistent with American values. We will walk into a conference 
with that point of view among the House Republicans. If we do not hold 
fast to our belief that we need a bill that is fair, a bill that is 
honest and tough, a bill that is consistent with American values, we 
will come back with a terrible outcome.
  We need a commitment from the Republican majority in the Senate that 
we will not even consider a conference report that moves in the 
direction of the Sensenbrenner bill in the House. That is unacceptable. 
It is unacceptable for us to criminalize millions of people.
  With that commitment, and if we stand true to the values of McCain-
Kennedy and the bill produced by the Senate Judiciary Committee, we 
will finally bring our neighbors and those who live amongst us out of 
the shadows.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas, Senator Cornyn.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to closing 
off debate on the underlying bill. We have heard at great length how 
the opportunity to file and argue and have votes on amendments has been 
effectively denied by the Democratic leader. It would be a travesty 
and, indeed, it would be a farce for the Senate to close off debate 
before we have even had that debate on the substance of this bill.
  Why it is that the Democratic leader and others who might vote to 
close off debate would want to deny the Senate an opportunity to 
exclude felons from the scope of the amnesty provided by this bill is 
beyond me. Why it is that there could be those who would want to deny 
American workers the protection of a fluctuating cap on temporary work 
permits such that American citizens would not be put out of work 
because those who have come to the country in violation of our 
immigration laws and would be given a guaranteed path to American 
citizenship is beyond me. Why it is we would want to deny countries 
such as Mexico and the Central American countries the opportunity to 
develop their own economies and to provide opportunities for their own 
citizens so that fewer and fewer of them would have to engage in part 
of the mass exodus from those countries to the United States, leaving 
those countries hollowed out and unable to economically sustain 
themselves and create opportunities for their own citizens, is beyond 
me.

  I understand there are those, on both sides of the aisle, who happen 
to like the Judiciary Committee bill that is the subject of this 
cloture motion. While there are portions of the bill I like very much, 
particularly those which have to do with border security, we know that 
the bill as yet still does not have a worksite verification provision, 
to my knowledge. My understanding is, because of jurisdictional 
conflicts, the Judiciary Committee could not complete work on that 
portion of the bill, and that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of 
the Finance Committee. We are still waiting for that title III to this 
bill to come to the floor and be offered as an amendment and be made 
part of this legislation. Without a worksite verification requirement, 
this bill will not work, notwithstanding how much we do at our borders, 
which is very important.
  This bill will not work unless we make sure that only people who come 
forward and submit themselves to background checks and we know are not 
criminals or terrorists and we know in fact they are qualified and 
eligible workers--unless we have a system

[[Page S3173]]

in place to make sure of that, this will not work and we will not have 
done everything we can and should do to make sure this bill will work.
  Indeed, in 1986, as part of the amnesty that was signed in that year, 
the quid pro quo for the amnesty of some 3 million people was an 
effective worksite verification program and employer sanctions for 
those employers who cheat and hire people on the black market of human 
labor.
  We know, because the Federal Government failed to provide that 
effective Federal Government worksite verification program, that now we 
are dealing with approximately 12 million people who have come here in 
violation of our immigration laws, and we are confronted with the 
monumental challenge of how to address those 12 million in a way that 
both respects our legacy as a nation that believes in the rule of law 
while we continue to celebrate our heritage as a nation that believes 
we are indeed a nation of immigrants and better for it.
  This is not the Senate working according to its finest traditions. 
The only way the Senate works is if each Senator has an opportunity to 
debate and to argue and to offer amendments. We understand not all of 
the amendments will be accepted. I am happy--maybe not happy, but I am 
willing to accept the fact that there may be amendments I will offer 
that will not be successful. But that is the way the committee process 
worked under Chairman Specter in the Judiciary Committee. Each of us 
had a chance to have our say, to offer amendments, and to have a vote. 
That is the way democracy works. But the idea that we will somehow try 
to jam this bill through here without Senators having a chance to 
debate and vote on amendments is a farce. I hope my colleagues will not 
support it and that they will vote against cloture so we may offer 
those amendments and have the kind of debate and process that 
represents the finest traditions of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I would like to take a minute only. I 
would like the record to reflect I am speaking as in morning business 
for that minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. CRAIG are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the absence of any other Republican 
Senator who seeks time to speak on the pending issue, I yield to myself 
5 minutes as in morning business to talk about two Judiciary Committee 
bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2557 
and S. 2560 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I began this debate by praising the 
bipartisanship of the Judiciary Committee for reporting a comprehensive 
and realistic immigration bill to the Senate. I have said from the 
outset that Democratic Senators could not pass a good immigration bill 
on our own. With fewer than 50 Democratic Senators, we will need the 
support of Republican Senators if the Senate is to make progress on 
this important matter today.
  With all the dramatic stagecraft of the last few days, and the 
protestations from the other side of the aisle, it may seem surprising, 
but the truth is that by invoking cloture on this bill we move to 
consideration of germane amendments. If the Kyl amendment is germane 
and pending, it would be in line for a vote. So much for all the 
bluster and false claims of Democratic obstruction we have heard. If 
Republicans want to move forward on this debate and get one step closer 
to a vote on tough but fair immigration reform, they should support 
cloture. For the past few days, I have offered and our leadership has 
offered to take up a number of bipartisan amendments for debate and 
votes that would have easily won the support of the Senate. It was 
Senator Kyl who objected to that progress.
  Late last night, the Republican leader came to the floor to file a 
motion that would require the Senate to send the immigration bill back 
to the committee. He immediately acted to ``fill the tree'' with a 
series of amendments and filed an immediate cloture motion. So before 
any of us even saw the amendment, the Republican leader made sure to 
stop every other Senator from offering any amendment. How ironic, after 
all the posturing by Republicans over the last 2 days about the rights 
of Senators to offer amendments and be heard, the majority party has 
returned full force to its standard practices. That is too bad, 
especially on a matter this important and on which we began with such a 
high level of demonstrated bipartisanship.
  The majority leader had set March 27 as the deadline for Judiciary 
Committee action, and we met his deadline. I always understood that the 
majority leader had committed to turn to the committee bill if we were 
able to meet his deadline. That is what I heard the Judiciary Chairman 
reiterate as we concluded our markup and heard him say, again, as the 
Senate debate began. The Democratic leader noted that we had agreed to 
proceed based on the assurances he had received that ``the foundation 
of the Senate's upcoming debate on immigration policy will be the 
bipartisan committee bill.''
  The majority leader had often spoken of allowing 2 full weeks for 
Senate debate of this important matter. Regrettably, what the majority 
leader said and what happened are not the same. The Senate did not 
complete work on the lobbying reform bill on schedule and cut into time 
for this debate. When the majority leader decided to begin the debate 
with a day of discussion of the Frist bill, we lost more time. We were 
left then with 1 week, not 2. We have lost time that could have been 
spent debating and adopting amendments when some Republicans withheld 
consent from utilizing our usual procedures over the last days. When 
the false and partisan charges of obstruction came from the other side, 
the Democratic leader filed a petition for cloture that I hope will 
bring successful action on a comprehensive, realistic, and fair 
immigration bill.
  I regret that over the last 3 days some tried to make this into a 
partisan fight. I fear they have succeeded. I urge all Senators, 
Republicans and Democrats, and the Senate's Independent, to vote for 
cloture on the bipartisan committee bill, to bring this debate to a 
head and a successful conclusion, in the time and on the terms set by 
the majority leader. If we are to pass a bipartisan bill by the end of 
this week, we will need to join together to support cloture on the 
bipartisan committee bill, proceed to work our way through the 
remaining amendments and pass the bill.
  This is a historic vote on whether the Senate is committed to making 
real immigration reform. I urge all Senators to vote for reform by 
supporting this cloture motion on the bipartisan bill that balances 
tough enforcement with human dignity.
  The Republican manager of the bill was right to take on the smear 
campaign against the committee bill from opponents who falsely labeled 
it amnesty. The committee bill on which cloture is being sought is not 
an amnesty bill but a tough bill with a realistic way to strengthen our 
security and border enforcement while bringing people out of the 
shadows to have them earn citizenship over the course of 11 years 
through fines and work and paying taxes and learning English and 
swearing allegiance to the United States. As The New York Times noted 
in a recent editorial, painting the word ``deer'' on a cow and taking 
it into the woods does not make the cow into a deer.
  It is most ironic to hear those in the majority of the Republican 
Congress talk about amnesty and lack of accountability. Their record 
over the last 6 years is a failure to require responsibility and 
accountability or to serve as a check or balance. They are experts in 
amnesty and should know that this bill is not amnesty.
  I was glad to hear the Republican leader begin to change his tune 
this weekend and to acknowledge that providing hardworking neighbors 
with a path to citizenship is not amnesty. I have not had an 
opportunity to see, let alone review, the Republican instructions in 
the motion filed late last

[[Page S3174]]

night. I am advised that they would establish a path to citizenship for 
a segment of the undocumented. I guess other Republicans will falsely 
label that effort as ``amnesty for some.''
  Tragically, however, the opponents of tough and smart comprehensive 
immigration reform do not stop with smearing the bill. They have also 
used ethnic slurs with respect to outstanding Members of this Senate. I 
spoke yesterday to praise Senator Salazar. His family has a 
distinguished record that should not need my defense. I deplore the 
all-too-typical tactics of McCarthyism and division to which our 
opponents have resorted, again. I wish someone on the other side of the 
aisle had shown the wisdom of Ralph Flanders and joined with me in 
criticism of such tactics. Regrettably, no one did. I, again, thank 
Senator Salazar, Senator Menendez, Senator Obama, and Senator Martinez 
for their support of the committee bill and their participation in this 
debate.
  The Specter-Leahy-Hagel substitute amendment that mirrors the 
Judiciary Committee bill confronts the challenging problem of how to 
fix our broken immigration system head on. It is strong on 
enforcement--stronger than the majority leader's bill. In some ways it 
is stronger than the bill passed by the House. It includes provisions 
added by Senator Feinstein to make tunneling under our borders a 
Federal crime and increases the number of enforcement agents. It is 
tough on employer enforcement and tough on traffickers. But it is also 
comprehensive and balanced. I have called it enforcement ``plus'' 
because it confronts the problem of the millions of undocumented who 
live in the shadows. It values work and respects human dignity. It 
includes guest worker provisions supported by business and labor and a 
fair path to earned citizenship over 11 years through fines, the 
payment of taxes, hard work, and learning English that has the support 
of religious and leading Hispanic organizations. It includes the Ag 
JOBS bill and the DREAM Act, the Frist amendment, the Bingaman 
enforcement amendment, and the Alexander citizenship amendment.
  Wisely, we have rejected the controversial provisions that would have 
exposed those who provide humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, 
counseling, and other basic services to the undocumented to possible 
prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions of the criminal 
law. And we have rejected the proposal to criminalize mere presence in 
an undocumented status in the United States, which would trap people in 
a permanent underclass. Those provisions of the bills supported by 
congressional Republicans have understandably sparked nationwide 
protests being viewed as anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant and are 
inconsistent with American values.
  Our work on immigration reform has accurately been called a defining 
moment in our history. The Senate, in its best moments, has been able 
to rise to the occasion and act as the conscience of the Nation, in the 
best true interests of our Nation. I hope that the Senate's work on 
immigration reform will be in keeping with the best the Senate can 
offer the Nation. I hope that our work will be something that would 
make my immigrant grandparents proud, and a product that will make our 
children and grandchildren proud as they look back on this debate.
  Now is the time and this is the moment for the Senate to come 
together to do its part and to reject the calls to partisanship. Now is 
the time to move forward with the committee bill as our framework so 
that we can bring millions of people out of the shadows and end the 
permanent underclass status of so many who have contributed so much. By 
voting for cloture we will take a giant step toward better protecting 
our security and borders and allowing the American dream to become a 
reality for our hard-working neighbors. History will judge, and the 
time is now.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will vote in favor of cloture on the 
Judiciary Committee substitute to S. 2454, the immigration bill that is 
pending. This substitute is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  This is a defining moment for America. Our immigration system is 
broken, and it is up to us to fix it.
  Congress can choose from several paths. We can build a wall around 
our country and make felons of millions of people who are undocumented 
or who have provided humanitarian assistance to the undocumented. That 
is the path the House bill would take, and I believe it is a path that 
is fundamentally inconsistent with our Nation's history and values.
  But we have another option, a better option. We can recognize that we 
need a comprehensive, pragmatic approach that strengthens border 
security but also brings people out of the shadows and ensures that our 
Government knows who is entering this country for legitimate reasons, 
so we can focus our efforts on finding those who want to do us harm. 
That is the Judiciary Committee substitute, and that is the path I 
believe we must choose.
  First of all, we can and must bolster our efforts at the borders and 
prevent terrorists from entering our country. We absolutely must work 
to curb illegal immigration, and I am pleased that the Judiciary 
Committee substitute contains strong provisions in this area. But it 
would be fiscally irresponsible to devote more and more Federal dollars 
to border security without also creating a realistic immigration system 
to allow people who legitimately want to come to this country to go 
through legal channels to do so.
  Right now, there are roughly 11 million to 12 million individuals 
here illegally. The United States issues only 5,000 employment-based 
immigrant visas each year for nonseasonal, low-skilled jobs. This is 
nowhere near the number of jobs that are available but not filled by 
American workers. More than anything else, this lack of available visas 
explains why we face such an influx of undocumented workers. These are 
the facts, and our immigration policy must deal with them.
  Improving our border security alone will not stem the tide of people 
who are willing to risk everything, even their lives, in order to enter 
this country. According to a recent Cato Institute report, the 
probability of catching an illegal immigrant has fallen over the past 
two decades from 33 percent to 5 percent, despite the fact that we have 
tripled the number of border agents and increased the enforcement 
budget tenfold. If we focus exclusively on enforcement, our immigration 
system will remain broken, and I fear we will have wasted Federal 
dollars.
  We need a new solution. We need to improve security at our borders 
and create a system that allows law-abiding noncitizens to enter the 
country legally to work when there is truly a need for their labor and 
that deals with the ``shadow population'' of illegal immigrants who are 
already here. And that is why business groups, labor unions and 
immigrant's rights groups have all come together to demand 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  There has been a lot of talk in this debate about ``amnesty.'' Let's 
be perfectly clear: Not one Senator who supports this committee 
substitute has suggested giving undocumented aliens blanket amnesty. 
The committee substitute would require undocumented aliens to show work 
history, satisfy background checks, pay fines, fulfill English language 
and civics requirements, and wait at the back of the line in order to 
obtain permanent status. In other words, people who come forward and 
play by the rules would be able to earn--not automatically receive but 
earn--a path to permanent status.
  It is easy to argue that those who came here illegally should be sent 
back to their home countries and that to do otherwise would be an 
affront to the rule of law. But even Homeland Security Secretary 
Michael Chertoff acknowledged to the Judiciary Committee last fall that 
it is impractical, not to mention astronomically expensive, to suggest 
that we just deport 11 million or 12 million people. We have to grapple 
with the complex reality in which we find ourselves, and it is not 
realistic or productive to suggest that mass deportations are a 
solution.
  Another provision of this substitute creates a guest worker program 
that allows employers in the future to turn to foreign labor but only 
when they cannot find American workers to do the job. This will help 
avoid a future flow of undocumented workers. Our laws must acknowledge 
the reality that American businesses need access to foreign workers for 
jobs they cannot

[[Page S3175]]

fill with American workers. In my home State, I have heard from many 
business owners, including a number whose businesses go back for 
generations, about the need for Congress to fix our broken immigration 
system because they cannot find American workers. These hard-working 
American business owners desperately want to follow the rules and 
cannot fathom why Congress has dragged its feet on this issue for so 
long. Whether it is tourism or farming or landscaping, our businesses 
will continue to suffer if we fail to enact meaningful, comprehensive, 
long-term immigration reform. But once we do, we also need to do a 
better job of enforcing our immigration laws in the workplace.
  While the committee substitute recognizes the need for foreign 
workers, the new guest worker program also includes strong labor 
protections to ensure that foreign labor does not adversely affect 
wages and working conditions for U.S. workers. We must not create a 
second class of workers subject to lower wages and fewer workplace 
protections. That would hurt all workers because it drives down wages 
for everyone. Foreign workers who have paid their dues should be 
treated fairly and deserve the protections of all working Americans.
  For all of these reasons, I support the core immigration reform 
provisions of the committee substitute. I also want to mention two 
pieces of legislation included in the committee substitute that I 
strongly support.
  The first is the DREAM Act. Regardless of what you might think about 
other aspects of immigration reform, we have to recognize that there 
are people affected by this debate with little say in the decisions 
that affect their lives--undocumented children. Many of these children 
have lived in this country for most of their lives and have worked hard 
in school. Yet due to their undocumented status, their long-term 
options are greatly limited. These children live with the threat of 
deportation and without access to crucial financial resources, making 
it virtually impossible to pursue the college education that would 
enable them to contribute more fully to our society. We should not 
punish children for their parent's actions, and we should not deny 
children who have worked hard the opportunity to live up to their 
potential. That is why I am a longtime supporter of the DREAM Act and 
why I am so pleased it was accepted as an amendment during the 
Judiciary Committee proceedings on this bill. This provision will allow 
children who are long-term U.S. residents, who have graduated high 
school, who have good moral character, and who simply want to further 
their contribution to our society, to pursue a higher education or 
enlist in the military. Under this provision, States could grant 
instate tuition to such students, and it would also establish an earned 
adjustment mechanism by which these young people could adjust to a 
legal status.
  I am also pleased that the AgJOBS legislation is included in this 
substitute. It is a tribute to Senator Craig, Senator Feinstein, and 
Senator Kennedy that we were able to reach a compromise on AgJOBS that 
the committee voted to include. This crucial legislation will enable 
undocumented agricultural workers to legalize their status and would 
reform the H2-A agricultural worker visa program so that in the future, 
growers and workers will not continue to rely on illegal channels.
  I wish to mention that I was pleased the Judiciary Committee accepted 
an amendment that I offered, to ensure that people whose naturalization 
petitions are denied by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services can 
seek judicial review. Citizenship decisions have historically been a 
judicial function, and it would have been a real disservice to our 
Nation's traditions to prevent individuals who have worked hard to 
become U.S. citizens to be denied that most central privilege without a 
judge's review of the decision.
  Of course, this bill is not perfect. It contains some very troubling 
provisions. I do not think that the National Crime Information Center 
database, which is the central criminal database used by local, State 
and Federal agencies around the country, should include civil 
immigration violations, and the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police has also expressed concerns about this. I also have concerns 
about other provisions in title II of the bill that require excessive 
deference to executive agency decisionmaking in immigration cases and 
that expand the categories of individuals subject to the most draconian 
immigration consequences.
  But overall, this is a good bill. I believe that if the Senate 
invokes cloture on, and ultimately passes, the Judiciary Committee 
substitute or something similar to it, we will be well on our way to 
fixing our broken immigration system. We will have chosen the right 
path.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, how much more time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 1 minute 40 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of the time and yield the floor. 
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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, baseball season is upon us. Tomorrow, my 
friend, Hall of Fame to be pitcher Greg Maddux will pitch. With 11 more 
victories, he will be in the top 10 of all baseball players who have 
ever pitched in the Major Leagues. He needs to win 11 more games this 
year.
  The reason I mention this is what we are doing here in the Senate is 
not a baseball game but, in spite of that, the American people are 
looking for a win. There is no question to this point the Senate has 
not pitched a perfect game, but I will say that the Senate Judiciary 
Committee has done a great deal. They have, in effect, loaded the 
bases. The Senate Judiciary Committee has loaded the bases. We have the 
bases loaded, and now the Senate is up to bat. We need to get a hit. If 
we get a hit, we drive in a run, it is over, and the American people 
have won.
  We have to remember what we are voting on. We are voting to keep 
moving forward on a good, strong, bipartisan bill that will secure our 
borders. No matter how many people come and talk, how many speeches 
they give, the fact is that is what it is all about. We, the minority, 
believe we owe it to the American people to keep moving forward on 
legislation that will keep us safe.
  Some Republicans disagree with that. It is very clear from the debate 
that has taken place. I can only guess they intend to kill this 
immigration debate and move on to other matters. That is unfortunate. 
If that happens, the Senate's inability to secure our borders and fix 
our immigration system will be the Republican's burden to bear.
  The one question I ask throughout all this: Where is President Bush? 
On an issue which is this important, I haven't seen his congressional 
liaison working the halls the way they do on the budget matters or they 
will later today or early when we come back after a break on 
reconciliation. I haven't seen them here. I haven't seen the Vice 
President over in his little office here, calling people in, saying 
this is what we need to do for the country. On immigration, the 
President has been silent.
  After this vote, which will take place in just a few minutes, I hope 
the President will become engaged in what is going on here and join in 
the move to pass important immigration legislation.

  Everyone says that they support immigration reform. In a matter of 
minutes, we are going to vote, and we have been told that all the 
majority is going to vote against cloture. That is too bad because the 
bill before us is, as I indicated, a good bill. This legislation is 
important. It will be a blow to America if this vote is blocked.
  For the last 2 weeks, we have enjoyed some rare bipartisan moments in 
the Senate. We have seen Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary 
Committee work together on one of the greatest national security issues 
we have ever faced. The bipartisan spirit has resulted in a strong bill 
that was supported by half the Republicans and all the Democrats on the 
Judiciary Committee.
  This bill isn't perfect, but it takes a comprehensive approach to 
immigration reform that this Nation needs. It

[[Page S3176]]

will secure our borders. It cracks down on employers who break the law. 
It will allow us to find out who is living here, whether it is 11 
million or 12 million. We will find out. We want the people who are 
living in the shadows to come forward, to be fluent in English. We do 
not want people who have committed crimes. We want them to pay taxes 
and have jobs. Even with that, they go to the back of the line.
  It is true that there will be additional immigration votes tomorrow--
maybe even late tonight if something can be worked out this afternoon. 
People have been working on the Martinez amendment for the last several 
days, and they haven't completed it yet, but they are very close. I 
compliment the Senator from Florida for the work he has done. Maybe it 
can be improved. I hope it becomes something for which I can vote.
  There has been tremendous movement during the night. I think that is 
very fortunate. We don't need to wait until tomorrow to register 
support for a strong bipartisan immigration reform bill; we can do it 
right now by voting for the committee bill.
  I have heard the arguments against voting for cloture but, frankly, 
they do not make a lot of sense.
  The first argument you hear is that by invoking cloture, you are 
shutting down debate.
  It was interesting. Late last night, Senator Frist offered an 
amendment. Do you know what he did? He filled the tree. He filled it up 
so no more amendments could be offered.
  I said last night to the Presiding Officer: Can I offer an amendment?
  He said no.
  But I have to say that the majority leader, in rare form, said: I got 
the point.
  That happens all the time here. It happens that people are not 
allowed to offer amendments. It is very frustrating to me--I wanted to 
offer a lot of amendments--and I am sure it is frustrating to others, 
but that is the way it is.
  The other argument is that we shouldn't vote for cloture because the 
cloture motion was filed by the minority and not by the majority. If it 
is important to end the debate, it doesn't matter who files a cloture 
motion.
  I don't know how easy it is for someone who has voted for this 
committee bill to vote against cloture. I don't understand how you 
could do that logically. But, in effect, that is what is going to 
happen. I think voting against cloture is a disservice to our country.
  I have great hope that when we complete this vote here today, we will 
come back, the bases will still be loaded, and we will have a pitcher 
there ready to throw something, and what will be thrown is the Martinez 
amendment. It is something we can all take a swing at and drive in a 
run. What would that run be? It would be a run that would give the 
American people a victory--a victory for border security, a victory for 
people who want to work. It would be a very important provision of this 
guest worker program, supported by wide-ranging groups of people.
  The third important aspect of this legislation, if we can get the hit 
this afternoon, would be to make sure that the 12 million people have a 
path to legalization--not an easy path but mountains to climb, some 
washes to move up, maybe even a tree or two to cut down, but it gives 
people hope that they can come out of the shadows and be part of our 
great American culture. I hope that will happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, in a few moments, we will be voting on 
this cloture motion.
  We find ourselves this morning at an interesting moment in time based 
on what we had to do yesterday and last night. The procedure has been 
complex. Indeed, some have tried to play politics or use parliamentary 
rules to slow things down, speed them up, cherry-pick amendments that 
we address.
  I believe many of our colleagues have been unfairly treated in the 
sense that, in a very important debate, when they have amendments we 
know will advance the discussion and improve the underlying bill they 
have been denied the opportunity to come forward and even introduce 
their amendments, debate them, and have them voted on.
  In a few moments, we will have a vote on a motion presented by the 
Democratic leader that everyone knows will fail, and I think it is a 
real shame that some have felt it was more important to play these 
games to get to this point, but we are here and we are going to have a 
vote.
  On the other hand, I am very optimistic by a lot of the events that 
have occurred over the last 14, 18 hours in terms of making real 
progress. After this vote in 30 or 45 minutes, I think the decks will 
essentially be cleared in the sense that we can optimistically look at 
where we are going to go over the next 12 or 24 hours.
  I believe the Hagel-Martinez proposal introduced yesterday, which all 
of our colleagues have looked at over the course of this morning, gives 
us an opportunity to make a major step forward on the underlying bill. 
It gives a fair approach, a balanced approach. It gives priority to the 
security concerns about our national security interests that are always 
at the top of our list. It pays attention to the 9/11 recommendations. 
It respects the rule of law as well as that rich contribution and 
heritage provided by our immigrant population.
  It was last October that I met with Senators Cornyn and McCain and 
many others to discuss our intentions to take a 2-week block of time 
and focus on it here on the floor of the Senate. Publicly, at that 
point in time--again, it was October--I laid out a strategy, a plan to 
start with border security, where we have in this broad body agreement, 
and then build out by consensus a comprehensive plan that would include 
the two other very important components--border security; second, 
interior enforcement, enforcement of the workplace--and, third, a 
comprehensive immigration temporary worker plan that would address what 
has become the most challenging aspect of this discussion: the 11 
million, 12 million, or 13 million illegal immigrants or undocumented 
people who are here. That is where we will find ourselves after this 
cloture vote.
  Shortly thereafter, I asked the Judiciary Committee, ably led by 
Arlen Specter and Senator Leahy, to produce a bill, to have the 
necessary hearings and markup, and consider legislation. Indeed, after 
six markup periods of designing and writing that bill, they did just 
that. I commend them. I thank the chairman. I know many Members were 
involved and participated, and I think they did a very good job.
  We began the debate last week. We started with border control, just 
as we laid out. We extended that to interior control enforcement and 
workplace enforcement and then comprehensive immigration reform 
including the temporary worker program. The American people expect it. 
To allow 2,000 or 3,000 illegal people to come across the border in the 
middle of the night, not knowing who they are or where they are going, 
is wrong. We can fix that, as well as comprehensive reform.
  I am optimistic that after today's vote, after we do that, if we stay 
focused, if we come together, if everyone takes a very careful look at 
the Hagel-Martinez proposal, we will finish with a bill which will make 
America safer, protect the rule of law, and recognize our interest in 
legal immigration.
  As I have said all along, I believe we cannot support amnesty. 
Amnesty, as I said before, is to give people who have broken the law a 
specialized, unique track to citizenship. But we do have 12 million 
people here today. We have to be practical. With the Hagel-Martinez 
approach, we will recognize and discuss the fact that these 12 million 
people are not a monolithic group. It is a group that can be addressed 
in different ways depending on where one falls within that group.
  I support a strong temporary worker program that allows people to 
fill what employment needs we have, to come here and to learn a skill, 
send money back home, and then return to their hometowns to build and 
contribute to their local community.
  I believe we need this three-pronged approach because only a 
comprehensive approach is going to fix this badly broken system we have 
today. For all we do on the border, at the worksites, we need to fix 
the immigration system and also to give us the real border security 
that so many know we need.
  Over the course of the day, people can study the approach which was 
put

[[Page S3177]]

on the table by Senators Hagel and Martinez. It deserves discussion and 
focus. I believe it will be the turning point in the debate because it 
is time for us to act and not talk. It is time for us to no longer 
delay, no longer postpone. It is time for us to give our colleagues the 
opportunity to offer their amendments.
  So talk, yes; debate, yes. But then let us vote--let us vote in our 
States' interests, vote for what is in our country's interest but; 
above all, let us give people the opportunity to vote.
  I will close by saying again that I am very optimistic that by 
working together and applying a little common sense, we will come up 
with a plan that gets the job done and which makes America safer and 
more secure.
  I encourage our colleagues to vote no on cloture now, and then the 
Senate will really get to work.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill 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 Specter 
     substitute amendment No. 3192.
         Patrick J. Leahy, Edward M. Kennedy, Robert Menendez, 
           Frank R. Lautenberg, Joseph I. Lieberman, Carl Levin, 
           Maria Cantwell, Barack Obama, Tom Harkin, Hillary 
           Rodham Clinton, John F. Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, 
           Richard Durbin, Charles E. Schumer, Harry Reid, Daniel 
           K. Akaka.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 3192 to S. 2454, a bill to amend the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, to provide for comprehensive reform, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--60

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 39, the nays are 
60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. THOMAS. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, the Senate has 
engaged in an important debate that is long overdue. Our current 
immigration system is broken and has been broken for many years. 
Although this problem is complex, the need for reform is clear, and I 
am pleased that the Senate is moving forward on the issue.
  We need to make comprehensive, responsible, and commonsense reforms 
that will stem the tide of illegal immigrants, will be fair to those 
who are here legally, and will deal realistically with the millions of 
illegal immigrants already here. I believe U.S. immigration policy 
should establish clear procedures for determining who can enter this 
country legally. And it must provide the tools for apprehending those 
who enter the United States illegally and to punish those who hire them 
at the same time. We must honor our traditions as both a nation of laws 
and a nation of immigrants, enriched by the diversity of newcomers.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee worked hard to create a bipartisan 
package that would accomplish many of those goals. The bill before us 
today would strengthen security at our borders through advanced 
technology, increased border patrol, and heavier fines. It would create 
a sustainable temporary worker program to help fill the lowest wage 
jobs, which pay little and are short of American takers. And it would 
provide a path to citizenship that does not bump anybody who is here 
legally but would allow law-abiding, hard-working undocumented 
immigrants to go to the end of the line.
  I am pleased by the inclusion of the AgJOBS bill in the Specter 
substitute amendment. The agriculture industry is the second largest 
industry in Michigan, behind manufacturing, and it depends upon the 
work of immigrants. The AgJOBS provision would provide protections for 
both the immigrant and American workers. It is estimated that without a 
guest worker program that allow for agricultural workers, the State of 
Michigan would lose hundreds of millions of dollars. In short, the 
AgJOBS provision is vital to the economic health of Michigan.
  The security provisions in this bill are also important for Michigan 
and for the Nation. As the 9/11 Commission pointed out in its final 
report, the northern border has traditionally received dramatically 
less attention and resources from the Federal Government. I am pleased 
that the language passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and included 
in the Specter substitute amendment authorizes an additional 12,000 
Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years, and requires that at least 
20 percent of these agents be stationed along our northern border.
  I was also pleased that Senator Collins is joining me in an amendment 
to help ensure our Border Patrol agents and other Federal officials 
involved in border security--including police officers, National Guard 
personnel, and emergency response providers--have the capability to 
communicate with each other and with their Canadian and Mexican 
counterparts.
  The Levin-Collins amendment would direct the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to establish demonstration projects on the northern and 
southern borders to address the interoperable communications needs of 
those who have border security responsibilities. These projects would 
identify common frequencies for communications equipment between United 
States and Canada and the United States and Mexico and provides 
training and equipment to relevant personnel.
  Overall, this legislation would be a step forward on a challenging 
and pressing issue. It contains important bipartisan provisions that 
will enhance our security and our prosperity while being fair.
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. KERRY pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 
33 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMINT). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.

[[Page S3178]]

  (Mr. DeMINT assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me talk about the business at hand, and 
that is the most important debate that I think this Senate has held in 
a good many months, on S. 2454, the comprehensive national immigration 
bill. In this immigration reform discussion, I have stood here to 
emphasize our imperative duty to guard our borders and strengthen our 
national security. I have spoken about the provisions within S. 2454 
that deal particularly with the agricultural economy that I have 
focused on now for a good many years. I presented my colleagues with 
alternatives and approaches toward resolving the issue of illegal 
foreign nationals working in the agricultural economy.
  Today I want to talk about another component of the immigration 
debate. I am concerned about some of the comments being flung around as 
we address this critical issue. Certainly, this is a topic that awakens 
America's emotions, but I cannot help but reflect on what those 
comments reveal about us as a Nation. It is as though America doesn't 
want to face the mirror and look at herself. She doesn't want to see 
what she is and what that means. But for her own good, she has to. She 
must look in her mirror. She is a blend. She is a wonderful mosaic. She 
is English. She is German. She is Italian. She is Polish. She is Irish. 
She is Asian. She is African. And, yes, she is Hispanic. She is 
multiracial, multiethnic, and diverse in every aspect of her national 
life. That is why she is admirable. That is why she has prospered, and 
that is why she is strong.
  What is true in science is true in sociology. Mixing results in 
achievement and strength--we ought to think about that. We ought to 
evaluate some of the conceptions we have regarding immigrants and 
measure them against the realities to see if they hold true.
  Immigration is a phenomenal national challenge. It always has been. 
But immigration is a challenge, it is not a threat. Quite honestly, 
immigrants represent solutions to many of our Nation's problems, both 
currently and in the future.
  (Mr. VITTER assumed the chair.)
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
projects a shortfall of 10 million workers in this country by 2010. The 
reason is quite simple: Our workforce is growing older, and as it grows 
older, it shrinks.
  That is true in Japan, a great Nation 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 
suggested to be the economic force of the world, and 12 years ago, it 
quit growing and began to die. Why? Because her workforce grew older.
  On the other hand, immigrant labor is behind the significant economic 
growth this country has experienced in different areas in recent years. 
These are the economic necessities of today in a growing economy. Can 
we recognize this? Do we see that foreign nationals are cleaning up New 
Orleans and binding her wounds? Do we know that the Pentagon was 
rebuilt by Hispanic muscle?
  Immigrants are sweating it out across our country. They consistently 
have done it literally for centuries. In my home State, Hispanics were 
digging the mines in the 1860s. Mexican cowboys and ranchers were solid 
members of the pioneer communities even before my State became a State. 
Hispanics were mule packers in the 1880s, the mule trains that moved 
across the great West. They and the Chinese were building and 
maintaining the railroad systems of the American West throughout the 
19th and 20th centuries. Today, they are harvesting apples in 
Washington, peaches in Georgia, and oranges in Florida. They are 
gathering grapes in California, slashing sugarcane in Louisiana, 
harvesting potatoes in Idaho, and picking corn in Iowa. Their 
footprints are in agricultural fields across America.
  Immigrants are hard workers. They work hard because they are grateful 
people and feel a sense of debt for the opportunity this country has 
given them. Contrary to what some believe, immigrants who have entered 
legally and illegally are not here to siphon services but to produce 
and to contribute. They are working hard and, in most instances, giving 
back.
  The Idaho commerce and labor department reports that between 1990 and 
2005, Hispanic buying power in Idaho rose more than twice as fast as 
total buying power across our State. Nationwide, the purchasing power 
of Hispanics will reach $1 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t''--in 
4 years. Beyond their role in sustaining the country's labor force, 
immigrants make a net fiscal contribution to the U.S. economy.
  The President's 2005 Economic Report, which uses figures that are 
most authoritative in analyzing to date the economic impact of 
immigrants, says:

       The average immigrant pays nearly $1,800 more in taxes than 
     he or she costs--

  The economy. Undocumented immigrants are believed to contribute 
billions of dollars to our Social Security system, billions of dollars 
they will not benefit from.
  According to the President's report, the administration's earnings 
suspense file--that is a file within Social Security made up of taxes 
paid by workers with invalid or mismatched Social Security numbers--
totaled $463 billion in 2002.
  While other nations of the developed world are aging, America still 
sees a youthful face reflected in that mirror in which she looks. 
Immigration renews the United States, and it keeps us young, while 
countries such as Japan, as I mentioned earlier, and Russia and Spain 
are facing problems because their populations are decreasing. America 
has the necessary arms to support its pension and its social programs. 
Therefore, a comprehensive immigration reform is in America's best 
self-interest.
  Yes, we must contain our borders. Yes, we must, in any immigration 
program, make sure that it is controlled and managed so that those who 
come to America can, in fact, become Americans.
  Understanding these realities erases some of the misconceptions 
bouncing around this Chamber and bouncing around America, 
misconceptions that sometimes smack of prejudice. Previous immigration 
waves have experienced it to some extent, but I believe that we, as a 
nation, are greater than that. When every one of us, except Native 
Americans, belong to a family that came from somewhere else, we should 
be careful not to erect mental borders, the type that keep people who 
are different from us at arm's length.
  We are a nation that encourages new thinking and benefits from the 
growth that results from that new thinking. The American poet, Oliver 
Wendell Holmes, said it best when he said:

       A mind stretched by a new idea never returns to its 
     original shape.

  It expands. It grows. It broadens. Immigration is a source of new 
ideas of entrepreneurship and vitality. The meeting of cultures simply 
does not happen in a one-way street but in a bridge, where both sides 
give and receive.
  When America looks at herself in her mirror, what will she see? She 
will see the very multicultural character she has always been. She will 
see that characteristic is her greatest asset.
  So the debate on the floor of the Senate today is worthy of this 
Senate. It is worthy of all of us to make sure that a program that is 
broken, a national immigration program that has not had a caretaker for 
over two decades, now be given that responsibility, to be redesigned, 
to be shaped, to be brought under control, that our borders be secure 
and that America's multinational or multiethnicity continue to grow and 
prosper and bring the kind of strength and viability to our culture 
that it has always given us.
  America will be greater because of what we do here, if we do it 
right; it will not be lessened by our actions.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. OBAMA. 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. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the compromise 
that we have reached around a comprehensive immigration bill.
  A group of Members led by Senators Hagel, Martinez, Salazar, McCain, 
Kennedy, Durbin, Lieberman, Graham, and others, have agreed to move 
this debate to a sensible center. In doing so, they have bridged a wide 
divide and demonstrated what the U.S.

[[Page S3179]]

Senate is capable of when it comes together to work on an important 
problem affecting the lives of all Americans. So I commend this group 
that I have had the honor of being a part of for moving closer to an 
agreement that serves the twin purposes of securing our borders and 
bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows.
  To assess our progress on this issue, we need only look back on where 
we were when this debate started last week. Many Members on the other 
side of the aisle opposed any plan that would provide a path to 
citizenship for undocumented workers who are living in the United 
States. I think the fact that, a little over a week later, we are now 
at a point where it is recognized that a path to citizenship should be 
part of a comprehensive package; that it will, in fact, improve our 
ability to monitor these workers and to make sure they are not 
depressing the wages of American workers; and that the undocumented 
population should have the opportunity to live out the immigrant dream 
over the long term is a positive step forward. I am especially pleased 
that the compromise includes changes to the guestworker program, first 
proposed by Senator Feinstein and me, to protect American wages and 
ensure that Americans get a first shot and a fair shot at jobs before 
they go to guestworkers.
  Everyone in the Senate who has introduced a comprehensive immigration 
bill, including the Administration, has called for a new guestworker 
program. I have to say that there are some concerns I have with a 
guestworker program. Clearly, there is a consensus among employers and 
the Chamber of Commerce that they need greater access to legal foreign 
workers in order to avoid the disconnect between supply and demand. In 
recognition of that consensus, the Judiciary Committee bill created a 
new temporary worker program. But many experts have expressed concerns 
about the size of that guestworker program and the effect it could have 
on American workers' wages and job opportunities. I think many of those 
concerns are legitimate.
  The Judiciary Committee bill would have allowed 400,000 new temporary 
``essential'' workers per year, adjusted up or down by market triggers. 
It would have created a 3-year visa, renewable for 3 years, with 
portability to allow guestworkers to move from employer to employer. It 
would have required that employers first seek out U.S. workers, and 
that guestworkers be granted labor protections and market wage 
requirements.
  Under the Judiciary Committee proposal, the guestworker could apply 
for permanent status within the new employment-based cap if his 
employer sponsored him, or the guestworker could self-petition to stay 
if he worked for 4 years.
  In order for any guestworker system to work, it has to be properly 
structured to turn people who would otherwise be illegal immigrants 
into legal guestworkers. And it has to provide protections for American 
workers who perceive their jobs to be at stake.
  Unfortunately, I believe the Judiciary Committee did not quite strike 
the right balance. But we can do better. We can ensure that 
guestworkers are not just unfair competition for American workers; 
rather, that they are a legitimate source of critical workers.
  To that end, Senator Feinstein and I offered an amendment to retain 
the underlying structure of the program presented in the Judiciary 
bill, but to address some legitimate concerns that have been brought to 
our attention.
  Let me discuss some of the key provisions in this amendment.
  First, Senator Feinstein and I originally sought to lower the cap on 
guestworkers from 400,000 to 300,000. The compromise bill lowers the 
cap to 325,000 workers. That's a significant decrease that should give 
some comfort to American workers.
  Second, our amendment ensures that localities with an unemployment 
rate for low-skilled workers of 9 percent or higher do not see an 
inflow of guestworkers under any circumstances.
  Third, our amendment ensures that guestworkers receive a prevailing 
wage, whether or not they are covered by a collective bargaining 
agreement.
  Finally, we guarantee that any job offered to a guestworker is first 
advertised to Americans at a fair wage.
  These are fair, commonsense changes. Our amendment recognizes that 
American workers will be better off if we replace the uncontrolled 
stream of undocumented workers with a regulated stream of guestworkers 
who enter the country legally and have full access to labor rights. 
Replacing an illegal workforce with legal guestworkers who can defend 
themselves will raise wages and working conditions for everyone.
  I think the amendment Senator Feinstein and I have offered will 
ensure that an employer seeks a temporary worker only as a last resort, 
and only after making a good-faith and fair offer to American workers, 
which is why this amendment has been endorsed by the Laborers' 
International Union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, SEIU, and 
the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
  I am pleased at the work that has been done. My understanding is that 
the compromise Hagel-Martinez legislation that is being prepared will 
provide for these terms. However, I remain concerned. We have to make 
absolutely certain--given the delicate balance between security, border 
protection, and treating all workers fairly--that we do not end up 
having a series of amendments that effectively gut this legislation. We 
also have to make sure that, if this bill is negotiated with the House 
in a conference committee, we do not end up with a program that creates 
a second-tier class of workers who cannot be citizens, and can be 
exploited by their employers.
  I am pleased at the progress that we have made since last week. I 
hope we continue it. I am looking forward, on a bipartisan basis, to 
addressing these concerns in the debate that follows over the next 
several days.
  Mr. President, 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Doha Round

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Finance, I chair a committee that has jurisdiction over international 
trade. We find ourselves being both a participant and an observer of 
Doha Round negotiations under the World Trade Organization. Those 
negotiations are in a very determinative state; success will be made, I 
believe, during the month of April or the Doha Round, for all practical 
purposes, would end--not in the minds of the WTO or in the minds of the 
148 nations other than the United States but as a practical matter. If 
things are not done by the end of 2006 and the President's authority 
for trade promotion running out in July of 2007, there will not be time 
for us to get something done before trade promotion authority runs out.
  I would like to have trade promotion authority for the President 
continued beyond July 2007. I would try to promote that, but we saw 
very close votes on CAFTA and other trade agreements; there is a 
protectionist trend in the Congress--maybe not in the Nation as a whole 
but at least in Congress--that might keep us from getting trade 
promotion authority reauthorized.
  I comment in these few minutes on where we are on the Doha Round and 
what I expect to happen and leave the message, if it does not happen 
very soon, this round could be dead.
  As we enter the final months of the WTO Doha negotiations, I am very 
concerned the bright promise of a world far less burdened with often 
crippling, market-distorting trade barriers may be slipping from our 
grasp. In particular, I am very troubled by the fact that nearly 5 
years after WTO members adopted the Doha ministerial declaration that 
launched this round of global trade talks, some of our WTO negotiating 
partners still seem willing to forgo this very historic opportunity 
that Doha represents to open highly protected agricultural markets.
  We now have less than 4 weeks to go to meet the WTO's new April 30 
deadline to reach agreement on what is referred to as modalities or, 
another way

[[Page S3180]]

to put it, a roadmap for how we will achieve our specific market-
opening objectives in the agricultural negotiations. This deadline, 
similar to most of the others, also appears to be elusive.
  The Doha Round is a historic opportunity because global trade rounds 
are relatively rare events. We have had only nine of them since the 
creation of the global trading regime back in 1947, what we then called 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT.
  Agriculture, which was ignored for almost the first 40 years of GATT, 
was only first addressed at all during the last round, which was the 
eighth round, which was called the Uruguay Round because it started in 
Montevideo and finished and passed by Congress in 1993.
  So here we are, 13 years later, trying to make some progress--but not 
making very much progress--toward what we would hope would be a 10th 
successful round since the regime started in 1947. Because many trade-
distorting barriers were untouched or minimally reduced at the end of 
the Uruguay Round in 1993, much was left to be done, particularly in 
agriculture, but we are negotiating manufacturing, we are negotiating 
services, so a lot needs to be done.
  In light of the lack of progress in the World Trade Organization, I 
briefly address a few points. First, as chairman of this Senate 
Committee on Finance, I reaffirm, as strongly as I can, the basic 
elements of the Trade Act of 2002, especially the legislation crafted 
by this committee that renewed the President's trade promotion 
authority in 2002, after it had lapsed for about 7 years.
  The underlying premise of our trade promotion authority legislation, 
which gives Congress enhanced oversight authority over trade 
negotiations conducted under that act, is that the United States will 
pursue a very ambitious, very comprehensive trade negotiation, 
particularly in agriculture. This was the cornerstone of the Doha 
Round--ambitious, comprehensive negotiations and nothing less.
  The reason I fought so hard for trade promotion authority is simple. 
The benefits from ending decades of trade-distorting practices in the 
global agricultural trade are overwhelming. The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture has estimated getting rid of market-disrupting agricultural 
protection could increase the value of U.S. agricultural exports by at 
least 19 percent. In addition, the Department of Agriculture study also 
concludes that agricultural liberalization would increase global 
economic welfare by $56 billion each year.
  I know well how vital trade is to farming families anyplace in 
America, but I am particularly knowledgeable about my State of Iowa 
because I happen to be a family farmer, farming jointly with my son 
Robin. Our farmers and agricultural producers sold over $3.6 billion in 
agricultural exports in overseas markets last year. Although importers 
and consumers from all over the world seek out Iowa's agricultural 
products, this is also true of American agriculture generally.
  Moreover, more than $3 trillion of economic activity in our $12 
trillion economy is derived from trade. Think of that: More than 25 
percent of our economy is based upon international trade. That is why 
an ambitious, comprehensive result in the Doha negotiations is the only 
kind of result that makes sense, both for my State of Iowa and the 
United States.
  President Bush and Ambassador Portman have done a very good job--in 
fact, a remarkable job, in my view,--of pursuing an ambitious, 
comprehensive agricultural deal, especially in the difficult period 
prior to and during the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference last December.
  Nevertheless, some World Trade Organization members, principally the 
European Union, now apparently want to stop short of that ambitious, 
comprehensive, result-seeking agreement that was previously reached in 
opening Doha Round, and they particularly want to shortchange the 
negotiations in the area of agricultural market access. That is why, 
when pressed by the United States and other World Trade Organization 
members, the European Union appears to be changing the subject away 
from ambitious market access to secondary issues such as food aid, on 
which we are now having protracted discussions.
  I am not even sure our own negotiators should be participating in 
something as fringe as food aid as compared to the massive discussions 
and decisions that need to be made in trade-distorting export subsidies 
by the European Union or by, in the case of the United States, 
production-related subsidies that we do for American agriculture, not 
subsidies for agriculture generally but those which are trade 
distorted. We find our American negotiators getting all nervous about 
food aid as somehow being a major item. No. What it is is an effort on 
the part of the European Union to detract attention from the really big 
export subsidies and production-oriented subsidies.
  Perhaps that is because of the intense political pressure European 
trade and agricultural officials think they face at home. It seems to 
me that the European Trade Minister wants to open up and do really good 
trade negotiations. It seems like there is a hangup by the European 
Agricultural Minister. And it seems to be really a hangup by French 
farmers. According to one account by former European Commission 
officials, European farm groups described one compromise agricultural 
agreement as a death warrant for European farmers. However, that was in 
1992, connected with the Uruguay Round negotiations, and the 
agricultural agreement that drew so much protest in Europe was back 
then, not today, when that description was made. Ultimately, of course, 
Europe accepted the Uruguay agreement in 1993. Now the European Union 
is right back where they were 13 years ago, citing that same agreement 
as a model for the type of agreement they would like to see today, at 
least in terms of linear tariff reductions.
  So we have seen this type of reaction from Europe before.
  Today, once again, the European Union thinks that ambitious market 
access too politically painful to achieve or to even thoroughly 
negotiate, but they got over that hurdle in Uruguay. Why can't they get 
over that hurdle in Doha? So we are back at the European tactic. It 
appears that what they are really trying to do is a minimal deal 
somehow being seen as a good deal. Apparently, they think it is a good 
result if they can get something that is marginally better than the 
status quo, end negotiations, declare victory, and go home.
  Other WTO Members such as Brazil appear reluctant to agree to an 
ambitious outcome in agricultural market access because they may 
believe that they can achieve their objectives through other means, 
such as litigation. You know about the cotton case. Brazil recently was 
successful in that case. So it may give them false hopes that they can 
achieve, through legal briefs in Geneva, what they do not appear to win 
at the negotiating table of the Doha Round.
  I would like to say a word about both of those situations.
  First, a minimal deal in the Doha agricultural negotiations is not 
something that can be considered a victory in any sense of the term, 
even in a political sense. What do I mean by a minimal deal? A deal 
that goes just beyond the 36-percent average tariff reduction of the 
Uruguay Round, a deal that leaves tariff peaks in place, or a deal that 
undermines market access by long lists of special exemptions.
  I will not try, as chairman of the Finance Committee, to spin some 
minimalist deal into some sort of political victory. In fact, I will 
not even allow it to be brought up for consideration in the Finance 
Committee or, if I was overruled by my own committee, I would fight it 
on the floor, if it ever got that far.
  So let me make that as clear as I can. A bad deal for agriculture in 
Doha negotiations is worse than no deal. That was my position at the 
start of these negotiations, and that is my position now. All those 
people spending all their time negotiating on food aid when they ought 
to be negotiating on export subsidies, when they ought to be 
negotiating on subsidies encouraging overproduction, that is not going 
to take my eye off the ball.
  A minimalist outcome in the Doha negotiations, after years of effort 
and high-level political engagement, would send a terrible message that 
real reform in agriculture is too hard to achieve and may set us back 
for decades.

[[Page S3181]]

  It would make meaningless a key element of the agricultural component 
of the Doha Ministerial Declaration where WTO member countries 
committed themselves to ``comprehensive negotiations aimed at 
substantial improvement in market access.'' That is what U.S. 
agriculture demands for giving up our subsidies connected to 
production. Farmers want their income from the marketplace, not from 
the Federal Treasury. But we cannot do that without market access, 
where there are 62 percent average tariffs around the world on 
agriculture compared to our 12 percent. If that happened, it would 
reward countries such as the European Union that have big farm 
spending, highly inefficient production----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time in morning 
business.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. If we went this route, it would reward countries such 
as the European Union that have big farm spending, highly inefficient 
production, and use nontariff barriers to thwart trade. And even though 
this round is known as the Doha Development Round because it is 
supposed to help poor countries, a bad deal that keeps high trade 
barriers in place would tell developing countries that they can forget 
about seeing fair opportunity to export their products.
  As for World Trade Organization members that see litigation in 
dispute settlement--as Brazil did in the cotton case--as a practical 
alternative to negotiations, I would remind those who are tempted to 
adopt this position that litigation, even under the new, improved WTO 
rules, is unpredictable, costly, time-consuming, and not the way to 
resolve unfair trade.
  Moreover, litigation is not always the most effective way to open 
markets and eliminate trade barriers, especially over the long haul. 
Historically, we have also depended on negotiations and the everyday 
management of trade and commercial relations as much better ways to 
achieve and maintain open markets.
  Make no mistake, we can and will defend our interests through dispute 
settlement when it is necessary to do so, and we have done so as the 
United States in the World Trade Organization quite successfully. But 
substituting litigation for negotiations or for management of our 
commercial relations is neither practical nor desirable, nor is it the 
way to bolster confidence in the World Trade Organization as an 
effective negotiating forum.
  I began by saying that this round of trade negotiations is a historic 
opportunity. It can be historic in the sense that we achieve a result 
that truly benefits the global community by increasing global 
prosperity, and it can be historic in the sense that we miss a great 
opportunity to promote prosperity and open markets throughout the 
world.
  Unfortunately, we have made enormous mistakes before when we missed 
important opportunities to fight for comprehensive global trade 
liberalization. In the early years of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade, going as far back as 1947, it was the developed nations, 
particularly the United States, that created exceptions for 
agriculture, that exempted it from liberalization under the GATT 
regime. It has taken us decades to shift gears to try to bring 
agriculture under the discipline of global trade rules. That is why it 
is so important for us to continue to make real progress in this round 
of global trade talks.
  Achieving real, meaningful results in these talks is something I am 
as strongly committed to now as ever before. It is also why I will 
continue to oppose any outcome in the WTO that, in my judgment, fails 
to accomplish these goals, even if it is a minimalist approach. Don't 
expect me to bring such an agreement before the Senate as chairman of 
the Finance Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to talk about immigration reform. 
Over the past week, I have heard many of my colleagues describe the 
important contributions immigrants have made to American society and 
culture. Like my colleagues, I agree that the United States has a long 
and proud tradition of immigration. Immigrants have contributed in many 
ways to our Nation since its birth. Many Americans are descendants of 
immigrants who came to America seeking a better life. Unfortunately, 
today we have a huge illegal immigration problem that threatens our 
Nation's security and our economic security.
  I was recently contacted about this issue by a constituent of mine. 
She is a young Irish-American woman whose parents emigrated from the 
Republic of Ireland to the Commonwealth of Kentucky over 20 years ago. 
When talking about her experience of immigration to the United States, 
this young woman stressed to me what a privilege immigration to our 
country truly is. She is right. Immigration is a privilege and not an 
entitlement. This distinct privilege of immigration is one which is 
unique to our great Nation and one which is currently being threatened 
by the flow of illegal immigrants into our society.
  Like so many of my colleagues, I would like to see this country's 
traditions of immigration preserved. But it must be done in a way that 
does not reward those who broke our laws and came to this country 
illegally. Looking at immigration reform, I believe we must start with 
securing our borders, to stop those who illegally try to enter the 
United States.
  Border security is the foundation on which we must build immigration 
reform. It is essential to our national security that we make it our 
No. 1 priority. We need to keep a close eye on who the people are who 
are entering this country and the purpose they have for coming here. 
The only way to do that is to make sure our Border Patrol agents and 
other law enforcement officials responsible for stopping illegal 
immigrants have the resources they need to protect our borders.
  Right now, our Border Patrol agents do not have enough funds to 
secure our borders effectively. Often, people have the ability to just 
walk across the unguarded border without question.
  We need to provide the Border Patrol agents with the best resources, 
the most up-to-date technology, and, most importantly, the manpower 
they need to successfully do their job.
  Just this past week, the FBI busted a smuggling ring organized by the 
terrorist group Hezbollah. They had some of their members cross the 
Mexican border to carry out possible terrorist attacks inside the 
United States. Securing our borders is no longer an option, it is a 
necessity. It is essential to securing our national safety, the safety 
of our citizens, and the safety of future American citizens.
  We must also find a commonsense solution to dealing with those 
individuals who are already here illegally. While there currently are 
several options on the table, I believe amnesty in any form is not an 
option. I was disappointed to see this in the Specter amendment. We 
must find a solution that meets the needs of employers, while also 
protecting American jobs.
  I think this could be done through some kind of program that would 
require illegal immigrants to return home to their country of origin 
after a set period of time. Once home, these workers could then apply 
to get on the path to come back as a temporary resident and maybe even 
apply for citizenship. But in no way should amnesty for illegal 
immigrants be an option. If these folks want to come back as citizens, 
they need to go back to their country and get in line behind the almost 
3 million people who have already begun following the law and waiting 
patiently to enter the United States legally. No one should be allowed 
to cut in line.
  As many of you know, Kentucky has a very proud and rich history in 
agriculture. From our tobacco farms, to our dairy farms, Kentucky's 
economy relies on its agricultural industries. As someone who is from 
an agricultural State, I understand the need for temporary workers. Any 
guest worker program needs to be simple to use for both the employer 
and the employee. Employers must be provided with the proper tools to 
verify the immigration status of their employees. Those tools need to 
be easy for our Nation's employers to access and to use. This is 
essential to any type of immigration reform and to our national 
security. We need to know who is being employed,

[[Page S3182]]

where they came from, and how long they are allowed to stay.
  Congress must act on immigration reform. I hope partisan politics 
does not prevent action on an issue that is so important to our Nation. 
I would like to once again reflect back on the words of my Irish-
American constituent and urge my colleagues, this week, to help keep 
immigration a privilege of our great Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to help put integrity back into the immigration 
process. While our country does have a rich tradition of immigration, 
we do not have a rich tradition of rewarding those who break our laws. 
I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both Democrats and 
Republicans, to remember the principles upon which our great Nation was 
founded. While we always have been and still are a land of opportunity, 
we also are a land of laws.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I hope this big problem that we 
have facing our Nation is given a chance to be solved on the floor of 
the Senate this week.
  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. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Support for the President's Plan for Iraq

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to respond to some of 
the comments that were just made by my colleague from Massachusetts. I 
want to start off by saying that I have been very supportive of the 
President on the war in Iraq because he has had a plan and he has 
stayed the course. That is what gives me confidence in the President. I 
think it is what gives confidence to many American people. They 
understand that he has made a strong commitment in Iraq to stick with 
the Iraqi people, and he has confidence in those people. Even though 
the political winds are twirling around, he has been able to ignore 
those and move forward. He is showing success. Sometimes it is not as 
great as we would like to see or as dramatic, but I think what we see 
today in the criticism of the President is individuals who are being 
spun in the political winds, unlike the President.
  When my colleague from Massachusetts calls the strategy of today 
counterproductive and says we ought to pull out our forces immediately 
from Iraq, that is a catastrophic suggestion. It is not anything that 
we should consider very seriously. It wasn't that long ago when my 
colleague from Massachusetts was saying that it would be a disaster and 
a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process and simply 
lay the groundwork for expedient withdrawal of American troops, which 
would risk the hijacking of Iraq by former terrorist groups and former 
Baathists. This quote was in the runup to the 2004 election.
  So we see some being spun in the political winds, while the President 
remains strong, forceful. The President truly is a leader in a very 
difficult situation in Iraq. That is why I feel so very committed to 
supporting the President. You cannot deny the fact that this President 
truly wants to see democracy survive in Iraq, and he truly believes in 
the Iraqi people.
  Contrary to criticism coming from the other side of the aisle, he 
does have a plan, and he is sticking to that plan.
  As we move through various phases of the President's plan, we have 
seen that criticism has changed from the other side. I think they 
criticize just for the sake of criticism, trying to get the President 
off course. But to his credit, he has stayed the course. I think that 
is commendable. That is what helps make him a strong and effective 
President.
  I want to make this point: Al-Qaida is still a threat in Iraq, but we 
are making significant advances there. I have to base that on 
discussions I have had with troops that have come freshly out of Iraq. 
They all believe they are indeed improving our situation in Iraq. They 
think they are making a difference in Iraqi lives, and they truly 
believe the Iraqi people they associate with appreciate what is 
happening and appreciate their efforts.
  There is a statewide elected official in Colorado, Mike Coffman, who 
has returned from Iraq. His mission was to help set up local 
governments throughout Iraq. We found in our military forces that we 
didn't have that expertise. And Mike, who is in the Reserves, could 
make a difference in Iraq. The military said: We need you, Mike 
Coffman, to help set up these local governments. He spent almost a year 
in Iraq helping set up local governments and the story he has to tell 
is one of progress in Iraq, that the people in Iraq are truly moving 
forward and trying to set up their local governments. He thinks that 
our soldiers are making a difference.
  Not for one moment has he expressed any regrets in having taken a 
year out of his political life in Colorado to go to Iraq and make a 
difference in Iraqi lives and help support the President and the plan 
he has for stabilizing Iraq and a gradual withdrawal.
  This is the point: my colleague from Massachusetts seemed to have 
learned the lessons of 9/11 when he warned against a precipitous 
withdrawal from Iraq in the past, but as the political winds have 
changed, he seems to have forgotten those lessons anew. Republicans 
will never forget the lessons of 9/11 and will continue to support the 
President's efforts to bring peace and stability to Iraq.
  I am supporting the President because he is staying the course. He 
has a plan in Iraq. He is putting the plan to work. I think that in the 
long run he is going to make a difference. We are going to have a 
better world because of his efforts. We are going to have a more stable 
Middle East, and this President will truly go down in history as a 
great leader.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes 
with respect to the amendment that has already been filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about an 
amendment that I filed, that I hope soon we might be able to consider, 
on this important bill with respect to immigration and with respect to 
Federal land border security, which are integrated.
  First, let me say that I am hopeful we can move forward with this 
bill. It is a very important bill. Obviously, all of us agree with the 
fact that there are problems that need to be resolved, and they need to 
be resolved soon so they don't continue to become more difficult.
  We also recognize that there are aspects of this bill that are 
controversial and difficult. I am not certain where we are in the 
process, but I am hopeful the discussions we have had will continue to 
be useful and that we can come to, whether this week or later, 
completion of this issue.
  As far as I can tell, everyone has agreed we need to do something 
about the border, that the border needs to be secure, whatever it takes 
to do that. Some of us don't think it takes 700 miles of fence, but it 
will probably take some fence and take some other new technologies, as 
well as dollars and people, to have a secure border.
  I don't think there is any question but that that needs to be done 
and needs to be done soon so that the problem that exists because of 
having a porous border doesn't continue to exist in the future. There 
is general agreement that over time, as immigrants come here for jobs, 
employers will need to report as to the citizenship status of the 
people they employ. There needs to be a system to do that so it can be 
part of the way of enforcing lawful immigration into this country.

  Further, I think most people don't disagree with the idea of 
immigration. The question, at least in my view, is illegal immigration. 
I am opposed to illegal immigration, and I think we have to do 
something to see that it doesn't continue to happen. The challenge is: 
How do we handle those folks who are here, whether it is 12 million or 
whatever the number is? I think that is where we are in the 
controversy, and I understand that.
  Personally, I don't think anyone should be given amnesty, nor should

[[Page S3183]]

they be given any particular advantages for citizenship if they came 
here illegally, and we need to find a way to deal with it. On the other 
hand, I am very much in favor of having legal workers come here and 
fill the jobs that are necessary. But they ought to have legal work 
permits, and they should have to go back if it is a work permit, and if 
they are citizens, they need to go through a citizen entry system.
  The other part of the debate and what I came to talk about is the 
aspect of our borders and security. That is one of the reasons--not 
only for immigration, but for security--we need to secure our borders. 
Many of our national treasures and resources are on the front line of 
border security. Thirty-nine percent of the southern border of the 
United States is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the 
Interior. Arizona's Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and other 
federally owned resources have become a hotspot for illegal border 
crossings. I visited Oregon Pipe last year. I am the chairman of the 
Parks Subcommittee. Frankly, they are using almost all of their 
resources not to take care of the park, not to do the things park 
people normally do, but to protect against illegal immigration movement 
across the border that is the park boundary border on the national park 
border.
  Over the last 2 years, park rangers have arrested 385 felony 
smugglers, seized 40,000 pounds of marijuana, and interdicted 3,800 
illegal immigrants. These are national park rangers. So it has become a 
very important part of border security.
  Border security activities play, as you might imagine, a very 
significant role in park operation funding and in park operation staff. 
Customs and border protection agents are not always available to patrol 
the Federal lands along the border. As you can see here, there are a 
number of things that are there. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, for 
instance, right here, is a very large aspect of the Arizona border. 
Here is the Organ Pipe park we mentioned. The Bureau of Reclamation has 
a number of these yellow spots along here. We don't have Texas and New 
Mexico on the map, but there are also a great many more Federal lands 
that are there.
  We have to make sure these agencies are given the assistance they 
need to provide the border security that is necessary, to provide for 
park researchers and others who are there doing their work or to pursue 
smugglers crossing the border. We never think about that particularly. 
All of a sudden there are cars parked there and people who have driven 
across, left the cars and walked on through, and so on. It is quite a 
problem. I understand that the Park Service law enforcement will 
inevitably play a role in border security, but we need to keep their 
jobs focused on protecting the park and not having to spend all their 
time on international borders--which is the responsibility of the 
Border Patrol--and other activities, or at least provide additional 
funding.
  This amendment will ultimately do two things: Protect our borders and 
protect our national treasures.
  We direct the Director of Homeland Security to increase Customs and 
border protection personnel to secure Federal lands and Federal parks 
along the border, which is I think a reasonable thing to do.
  It requires Federal land resources training for Customs and Border 
Patrol agents who will be dedicated to Federal land border security to 
minimize the impact on the natural resources. After all, that is why we 
have Federal lands.
  That is why we have parks, to make sure the resources are protected. 
Quite frankly, if you have illegals crossing, they have no interest in 
protecting those resources.
  It provides unmanned aerial vehicles, aerial assets, and remote video 
surveillance camera systems and sensors. Those are the things we need 
as opposed to big walls.
  It requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory of 
the costs incurred by the National Park Service relating to the border 
security activities and submit those recommendations to Congress.
  I realize this is only one rather small element of this whole issue 
we are talking about but, nevertheless, it is a unique issue, it is an 
important issue, and as we move through dealing with border security 
and dealing with Federal land borders and protecting these things, I 
hope we keep in mind this unusual but important exposure we have to our 
Federal lands.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Conrad and Mr. Alexander pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2571 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending legislation is the Frist second-
degree amendment to the motion to commit.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a little while ago--I was not here, I was 
at a hearing of the Finance Committee--I am informed that the Senator 
from Colorado, Mr. Allard, came to the floor to attack my position on 
Iraq, which is fine by me, but also I think somewhat questionable with 
respect to the rules and the ethics of the Senate to attack me 
personally about my motives with respect to a position I have taken. 
The Senator from Colorado suggested that ``we see an individual who is 
being spun in the political winds.''
  Let me make it clear to the Senator from Colorado, and anybody else 
who wants to debate Iraq, that when it comes to issues of war and peace 
and of young Americans dying, nobody spins me, period.
  I am not going to listen to the Senator from Colorado or anyone else 
question my motives when young Americans are dying on a daily basis or 
losing their limbs because Iraqi politicians won't form a government 
from an election that they held in December. That is inexcusable.
  Let me ask the Senator from Colorado: Is it OK by him that young 
Americans are dying right now while politicians in Baghdad are 
frittering away their time and squandering the opportunity our soldiers 
fought to give them? Does he think that is a plan that is working? Does 
he think that is serving the needs of the American military?
  Indeed, a year and a half ago or 2 years ago, I suggested, as did 
many other people, that it would be inappropriate to set a timetable 
for American troops to withdraw because we had not had elections and 
because most people assumed what we were fighting then was al-Qaida and 
terrorists who were foreign terrorists. But the fact is since then we 
have trained forces, we have trained police. We listened to this 
administration consistently come and tell us how great the training is, 
how many people are up and trained, how much they have been able to 
make progress, how 70 percent of the country is indeed peaceful.
  If that is true, then there shouldn't be a great threat to reducing 
American forces on a schedule that is also tied to our ability to 
resolve other issues with respect to Iraq.
  I ask the Senator from Colorado: Let us have a real debate about this 
issue.
  Does he ignore what our own generals tell us? He says the President 
has a plan. Our generals tell us--General Casey--that the large 
presence of American forces in fact is adding to the occupation in the 
sense of an occupation and it derails the Iraqis standing up on their 
own.
  I am listening to General Casey--not to the Senator from Colorado. If 
General Casey tells me the Iraqis would stand up faster if there were 
less Americans there, I believe him. Our troops have done the job.
  Don't come to the floor of the Senate and try to suggest to me that 
somehow when we come up with a plan to protect our troops and to make 
America stronger we are somehow making their life more miserable. Ask 
the troops. Seventy percent of the troops who were polled in Iraq said 
they thought next year we ought to be able to withdraw. Those are our 
troops talking to us.
  The notion that we are going to try to make this into one of those 
political

[[Page S3184]]

squabbles--let us have a real debate about the policy in Iraq. Anybody 
who wants to come to the floor and pretend it is working today is 
living in fantasyland.
  Anybody who wants to suggest our soldiers ought to be dying so a 
bunch of folks over there can squabble over issues we haven't even 
brought to the diplomatic table adequately has a false sense of what 
protecting the troops means and of what their interests are. The fact 
is they only respond to deadlines.
  Talk to people who have been in the region. It took a deadline to get 
them to have a transfer of the provisional government. It took a 
deadline to be able to get the elections in place. It took a deadline 
to be able to get the Constitution in place. It took a deadline to be 
able to have the election that we held in December.
  The fact is it ought to take a deadline now to tell them to put a 
government together, stop messing around, and don't put our kids' lives 
at stake and waste the billions of dollars of American taxpayers. Get 
your government together. You owe that much to the American people. You 
owe that much to yourself. You owe that much to the Iraqis. You owe 
that much to the world, which is waiting for leadership, for some kind 
of adult behavior.
  I don't think the American people believe what the Senator from 
Colorado said--that they believe there is a good plan in place. 
Everything we have been told about Iraq has turned out to be false, 
from almost day one. This is the third war we are fighting in Iraq in 
as many years. The first war, I remind Americans, was the war to get 
Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were 
not any weapons of mass destruction, it became regime change.
  If the President of the United States had come to the Congress and 
said I want authorization to go to Iraq for regime change, he wouldn't 
have received it.

  Then after it was regime change, it transformed into, oh, we have to 
fight them over here rather than fight them over there--fight them over 
there rather than here in the United States of America. That sounded 
good for a while because all of us want to fight al-Qaida and want to 
fight terrorists. But, lo and behold, we found there were, according to 
most of the estimates, 700 to 1,000 or so hardcore jihadists from other 
countries over there.
  The insurgency grew day by day to be an insurgency that is now a low-
grade civil war. Prime Minister Allawi called it a civil war. Does the 
Senator from Colorado believe he knows better than Prime Minister 
Allawi what to call it? The fact is it is now a civil war, and our 
troops can't resolve a civil war, no matter how valiant--and they have 
been--no matter how courageous--and they have been--and no matter how 
skilled--and they have been. This is the best military I have ever 
seen. These are the best young men and women I have ever met, and it 
has been a privilege to go to Iraq and meet them. And they are making 
progress in certain areas. But their progress is set back by the 
unwillingness of Iraqis to pick up the baton of democracy.
  You have to compromise. The whole reason they think they can sit 
there and not compromise is because the President's policy is stay the 
course, stay the course, stay the course. And we have an occasional 
visit by the Secretary of State or somebody to suggest they ought to do 
more.
  Ambassador Khalilzad is a terrific person. He is skilled, and he is 
doing a great job. But he can't do this alone.
  I believe we ought to have a real debate about their policy--a policy 
where they told us it would cost $20 billion to $30 billion. Remember 
that, colleagues? Remember Mr. Wolfowitz in front of the committees 
telling us, Oh, the Iraqi oil is going to pay for the war? Remember 
them telling us that the soldiers were going to be received like 
conquering heroes with flowers all across Iraq?
  Then when looting broke out, remember Mr. Rumsfeld standing up and 
saying that Washington is safer than Baghdad, and looting happens? 
Remember how they didn't even guard the ammo dumps and our kids started 
to get blown up with the ammo they could have guarded? No plan was put 
in place.
  If anybody wants to read about Iraq, read the book ``Cobra 2.'' You 
can read the astounding story of negligence and malfeasance with 
respect to this war, about companies overbilling us, Halliburton by 
billions of dollars.
  Do you want to run down the list of things that are egregious with 
respect to this war? I will tell you one thing that I know well, and I 
will remind the Senator from Colorado that half the names on the wall 
of that Vietnam Memorial--half the names on that wall--became names of 
the dead after our leaders knew our policy wouldn't work.
  Our policy isn't working today, and I am not going to be a Senator 
who adds to the next wall, wherever it may be, that honors those who 
served in Iraq so that once again people can point to a bunch of names 
that are added after we knew something was wrong. We have a bigger 
responsibility than that.
  The absence of legitimate diplomacy in this is absolutely astounding 
to me. When you look at what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger 
did night after night, day after day, flying back and forth on an 
airplane, struggling to be able to get people to come to agreement 
around the table; when you look at what former Secretary Jim Baker did, 
traveling all over the world, working with countries, pulling people 
together around the idea--I don't even see deputy assistant secretaries 
or other people out there at that level working with other countries to 
try to find a resolution to this.
  There are Sunni neighbors all around who could play a more 
significant role. The Arab League could play a more significant role. 
The United Nations could play a more significant role. What are we 
doing? Drifting day after day after day.
  Do we want to go back and talk about the armor our troops didn't 
have? Do we want to go back and talk about the humvees that weren't 
uparmored? How many kids have lost their arms or legs because of the 
lack of adequacy of the equipment they were given? How many parents had 
to go out and buy armor for their kids because it wasn't provided for?
  I have never in my life seen a war managed like this one where there 
has been zero accountability at the highest levels of civilian 
leadership and people have been able to make mistake after mistake 
after mistake. And people want to come to the floor and defend it as 
somehow justifiable that we have a plan and we are on course? We are 
not on course. We are on the wrong course. The plan needs to be 
changed.
  Somebody ought to tell the Iraqi leadership that American citizens 
are not going to put their money and the treasury of their young into a 
kind of noneffort to compromise and show statesmanship and leadership 
that puts a government together. When they put that government 
together, then we can talk about how we are going to move forward. But 
right now, this is adrift. It is a policy without leadership, and the 
American people understand that. What we need now is civilian 
leadership that is equal to the sacrifice of our soldiers.
  I yield the floor. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Police Chief Terry Gainer

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today is the day before the departure of 
Capitol Hill Chief of Police Terry Gainer, a man who has served us so 
well.
  I have known Terry Gainer for almost 20 years. He served as 
superintendent of the Illinois State Police and left that position to 
become one of the leading officers in the District of Columbia Police 
Force. He was then asked to become chief of the Capitol Police Force. I 
knew that the people making that decision had made a very fine choice. 
Chief Gainer proved me right.
  Terry Gainer grew up in Illinois, served his country in Vietnam, 
returned from that war a decorated veteran. His service did not end 
when he left the military. Prior to his position with the Illinois 
State Police, he spent 16 years with the Chicago Police Department. 
With his extensive experience at the highest levels of police work, his 
reputation for professionalism and his tireless commitment

[[Page S3185]]

to the security of our Nation's most honored building and those who 
visit and work within it, Terry Gainer brought the Capitol Police Force 
to a new level of professionalism.
  In the words of one of their officers, Chief Gainer transformed the 
Capitol Police Force from an inside operation, where the officers were 
often viewed many times as security guards, to a well-known, highly 
visible, professional law enforcement team. That change took place at a 
critical moment in our Nation's history. The threat of terrorism became 
very real and the vulnerability of the building in which I speak became 
very obvious. Today, the well-trained group of men and women protecting 
our security today in this hallowed building are among the finest in 
the Nation, and we are extremely fortunate to have them.
  As a Member of the Senate whose life was made safer because of Chief 
Terry Gainer's leadership, I am indebted to him for his singular 
service to Congress and to our country. The Gainer legacy on Capitol 
Hill is written in a police force proud of its mission and committed to 
serve and protect. Chief Gainer deserves the gratitude of the Capitol 
family for his fine service. He will be missed.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 2573 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                             Scooter Libby

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the last item I would like to speak to is 
one that is now in the news for the last several hours. It has been 
noted that in the court papers filed by Lewis Scooter Libby before the 
Federal court that he has made some amazing disclosures. You will 
remember that Mr. Libby was Vice President Cheney's chief of staff who 
was indicted recently over the Valeri Plame incident. The Valeri Plame 
incident involved a situation where someone told Robert Novak, a 
columnist, about the identity of a woman who was working undercover to 
protect the United States. That disclosure was made through White House 
sources which Mr. Novak attributed them to and has been investigated 
since by Patrick Fitzgerald, who is a special prosecutor on this case 
and the U.S. attorney for the northern district of Illinois.
  As a result of his investigation to date, Mr. Libby, Vice President 
Cheney's chief of staff, has been indicted. Now today there are 
disclosures that in his court papers he has made some statements which 
are troubling. Before his indictment, according to CNN.com, Lewis Libby 
testified to the grand jury investigating the CIA leak that Vice 
President Cheney told him to pass on the information and that it was 
President Bush who authorized the disclosure.
  According to the documents, the authorization led to a July 8, 2003, 
conversation between Mr. Libby and New York Times reporter Judith 
Miller. There was no indication in this court filing that either 
President Bush or Vice President Cheney authorized Mr. Libby to 
disclose Valeri Plame's CIA identity, but the disclosure in documents 
filed Wednesday means that the President of the United States and the 
Vice President put Lewis Libby in play as a secret provider of 
information to reporters about prewar intelligence on Iraq.
  The authorization came as the Bush administration faced mounting 
criticism about its failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the 
main reason the President gave for the invasion of Iraq.
  Mr. Libby's participation in a critical conversation with New York 
Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, occurred only after the 
Vice President advised the defendant, Mr. Libby, that the President of 
the United States specifically had authorized Mr. Libby to disclose 
certain information in the National Intelligence Estimate. That is what 
is in the court records. That is what was disclosed today.
  At the time the National Intelligence Estimate was prepared, I was a 
member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I recall it very well 
because as we were preparing for the invasion of Iraq, one of the 
senior staff people on the committee came to me and said: Senator, 
something is unusual here. We never make an important decision, let 
alone an invasion of a country, without what is known as a National 
Intelligence Estimate. We bring together all the intelligence agencies 
of our Federal Government, ask them to compare notes, and reach a 
conclusion as to what we are likely to find if we move forward. It has 
not been done.
  This was in September. The vote on authorizing the invasion of Iraq 
was weeks away, and we still hadn't brought together the best minds of 
our intelligence community to determine what we were likely to find 
once there. So I wrote a letter to George Tenet, head of the Central 
Intelligence Agency, requesting this National Intelligence Estimate, as 
well as Senator Robert Graham, who joined me, as chairman of the 
committee, in making the same request. Within a few weeks, the National 
Intelligence Estimate was prepared and given to us.
  There has been a lot of review of that estimate ever since. Some 
people say it was a shoddy job. It was slapped together. It had 
footnotes that didn't make sense. It was the basis of our intelligence 
for going to war. But the one thing I can tell you is, the minute it 
was handed to me in the Intelligence Committee, I was told: This is top 
secret. This is classified. You disclose this at your own peril. You 
will be subject to criminal prosecution if you do. It is one of the 
burdens of serving on that committee. You are reminded of that 
constantly, that no matter what information you absorb, you cannot 
speak to that information when you leave that closed room.
  Now we learn that according to Mr. Libby, now under indictment, he 
was authorized by not only Vice President Cheney but President Bush to 
disclose information in the National Intelligence Estimate to the 
press. The allegations that are contained here suggest that information 
was being disclosed in order to overcome criticism that the American 
people had been misled about weapons of mass destruction.
  I have to tell you, as a member of that committee, we looked at the 
preparation of this intelligence leading up to the war, and we were 
disappointed. Our intelligence agencies did not do the professional job 
we expected of them. I can't explain to you exactly why. Some of it has 
to do with lack of technology, lack of sharing information. Some of it, 
they were just plain wrong.
  Their guess and best estimate as to what we would find in Iraq was 
plain wrong. Despite all of the hyperbole about weapons of mass 
destruction, still today, not a single weapon has been found. Despite 
all of the suggestions that somehow Saddam Hussein was part of the 
tragedy and disaster of 9/11, absolutely no connection has been 
established. Despite all of the threats of mushroom clouds from 
Condoleezza Rice and others, it turns out there was no evidence of 
nuclear weapons in Iraq.
  That information was wrong. The American people were told that we 
have to go to war, we have to risk the lives of American servicemen 
because of a threat that didn't exist. Where are we today? We are still 
there, and 130,000 American soldiers, as I stand here safely, are 
risking their lives for America in Iraq. As of this morning, 2,346 
American soldiers have died in service to their country. We stand in 
awe of their patriotism and courage, but we have to ask some hard 
questions.
  The hard questions go to this point: How and when will this war end? 
When will the Iraqis reach the point where they accept responsibility 
for their own country? We can no longer afford to be misled about the 
threat to the United States and what lies ahead in Iraq. The people I 
spoke to on my recent trip to southern Illinois got it right. One of 
them said: Why aren't we going to the Iraqi Government and saying that 
over 3 years ago we sent in our soldiers to depose your dictator, a man 
whom no one respected; we deposed him so that you could take control of 
your own country. We put American lives on the line so you could hold 
free elections. We gave you a chance to start your own government. When 
are the Iraqis going to stand up for themselves, their own country, and 
their own defense? How many years have we been promised that we are so 
close to the day when the Iraqi Army will be able to take the place of 
the U.S. Army? I will believe it when the first American soldier comes 
home and is replaced by an Iraqi soldier ready to stand and die for 
Iraq, as our soldiers do every single day.

[[Page S3186]]

  Sadly, we don't know when that day might come. The President comes 
before the American people several weeks ago and what does he say? ``Be 
patient.'' Be patient as more American soldiers are endangered and lose 
their lives. Be patient as we face a situation with no end in sight. It 
is hard to counsel patience. When asked directly when will the American 
soldiers be coming home, what did the President say? That will be up to 
the next President--the next President.
  The Iraq war has lasted almost as long as World War II. If we have to 
wait 2\1/2\ more years for American soldiers to come home, it will be 
one of the longest conflicts in our history. Is this what we bargained 
for when we invaded Iraq? We know now that the so-called coalition of 
the willing involved a lot of countries, but primarily it involved 
American lives. It is American soldiers who are standing and fighting 
in vastly greater numbers than any other country that is involved.
  Let me tell you that the families who wait at home anxiously want to 
know the same answer to the question I pose: When, Mr. President, is 
this war going to end? When are we going to turn over the 
responsibility to the Iraqis?
  When will we replace American soldiers with Iraqis who will stand and 
fight for Iraq? This last week I was in Illinois and visiting with 
friends of mine who work in railroad unions. I talked about this issue, 
and a fellow followed me out of the room and said: My son is headed 
over there next week. He started crying. This strong fellow who worked 
for the railroad all his life was a father whose heart was broken 
knowing his son was going into this danger. How many families have had 
to watch that happen and waited anxiously and expectantly at home for 
the letters and e-mails and phone calls? How many, sadly, have received 
the tragic news that they were one of the 2,346 families who lost 
someone they loved very much in that country?
  Mr. President, as I read the allegations in the newspapers from Mr. 
Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, they were 
disclosing secret, classified information from a national intelligence 
estimate to the press in the hopes of bolstering the President's 
popularity. It is a grave disappointment. We can do nothing less than 
to investigate this. We need to find out if this did occur. If it did 
occur, the President and Vice President must be held accountable--
accountable for misleading the American people and for disclosure of 
classified information for political purposes. That is as serious as it 
gets in this democracy.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. 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. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Operation Iraqi Freedom: Three Years Later

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, in light of the fact that we have those 
who are calling for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, I think we 
ought to sit back and look at what has happened in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom for the last 3 years. We have made remarkable progress in Iraq 
in the last 3 years.
  On March 19, 2003, the United States and coalition forces launched 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. At that time, life in Iraq, under Saddam 
Hussein, was marked by brutality and fear and terror. Iraqis had no 
voice in their country or their lives. Saddam devastated Iraq, wrecked 
its economy, ruined and plundered its infrastructure, and destroyed its 
human capital.
  Let's look at what is happening today. Iraq has a democratically 
elected government. The reign of a dictator has been replaced by a 
democratically elected government, operating under one of the most 
progressive constitutions in the Arab world. Millions of Iraqis have 
joined the political process over the past year alone. Today, Saddam 
Hussein is facing justice in an Iraqi court.
  The Iraqi people are holding Saddam accountable for his crimes and 
atrocities. I believe the next year will bring a consolidation of these 
gains, helping a new government stabilize and build a solid foundation 
for democracy and increased economic growth.
  Iraq's elected leaders are diligently working to form a government 
that will represent all the Iraqi people. As the Iraqi Government comes 
together and Iraqi security forces improve their readiness, efforts to 
stabilize the nation will increasingly be Iraqi-led.
  I point out that securing a lasting victory in Iraq will make America 
safer, more secure, and stronger--make it safer by depriving terrorists 
of a safe haven from which they can plan and launch attacks against the 
United States and American interests overseas; more secure by 
facilitating reform in a region that has been a source of violence and 
depriving terrorist control over a hub of the world's economy; stronger 
by demonstrating to our friends and enemies the reliability of U.S. 
power, the strength of our commitment to our friends, and the tenacity 
of resolve against our enemies.
  Despite progress, the situation on the ground is tense. As al-Qaida's 
actions show, terrorists want to impose a dictatorial government on the 
Iraqi people. The coalition is united in support of the Iraqi people in 
helping them win their struggle for freedom. The terrorists know they 
lack the military strength to challenge Iraqi and coalition forces 
directly, so their only hope is to try to provoke a civil war and 
create despair.
  The President's national security for victory in Iraq has three 
tracks. I would like to go over those briefly. They are a political 
track, a security track, and an economic track, and I would add that 
all three tracks are progressing.
  On the political track, many are participating in Iraq's political 
process. Iraqis completed two successful nationwide elections and a 
national constitutional referendum in 2005. Each successive election 
experienced less violence, bigger voter turnout, and broader political 
participation. On December 15, more than 75 percent of the Iraqi 
voting-age population participated in the election for a new 
government--an increase of more than 3 million voters over the January 
election.
  I will talk a little bit about the security track.
  Iraqi security forces are increasingly in the lead. Three years ago, 
under Saddam Hussein's rule, the Iraqi Army was an instrument of 
repression. Today, an all-volunteer Iraqi security force is taking 
increasing responsibility for protecting the Iraqi people.
  Iraqi security forces are growing in number and assuming a larger 
role. More than 240,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained and 
equipped. Over 112,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, and airmen have now 
been trained and equipped. More than 87,000 police have been trained 
and equipped. These police work alongside over 40,000 other Ministry of 
Interior forces.
  Additional Iraqi battalions are conducting operations. Last fall, 
there were over 120 Iraqi Army and police combat battalions in the 
fight against the enemy, and 40 of those were taking the lead in the 
fight. Today, the number of battalions in the fight has increased to 
more than 130, with more than 60 taking the lead.
  Let's briefly look at the economic track.
  Iraq's economy is recovering, and the Iraqi people have better access 
to essential services. In 2005, the Iraqi economy grew an estimated 2.6 
percent in real terms, and the International Monetary Fund has 
estimated it will grow by more than 10 percent in 2006.
  Mr. President, 3.1 million Iraqis enjoy improved access to clean 
water, and 5.1 million have improved access to sewage treatment. More 
than 30 percent of Iraq's schools have been rehabilitated, and more 
than 36,000 teachers have been trained.
  This is what our American soldiers in Iraq have helped accomplish for 
the Iraqi people and for America. We should be proud and thankful for 
their willingness to step forward for freedom. Freedom does work. It 
works for America, and I believe it will work for Iraq. The solution is 
not a hasty retreat; the solution is to carry on with the President's 
plan for victory.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S3187]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, there has been an 
announcement of a resolution or a settlement among a group of Senators 
relating to the border security and immigration reform bill that is 
pending before the Senate, although I would note that the entire Senate 
has yet to sign off on that agreement. I, for one, want to talk for a 
few minutes about my concerns regarding the proposal.
  Last night we were told at approximately 10 o'clock that this 
agreement was struck with a group of Senators. It consists of 525 pages 
and I dare say not many people have read it yet. But my review of the 
agreement causes me some serious concerns about whether it represents 
something that reflects good policy or something that would warrant my 
support.
  First, I believe there is a grave risk that the proposal would 
represent a repetition of the mistake of 1986 when the Congress passed 
major immigration legislation. My colleagues will recall that it was 
that year Ronald Reagan signed a bill that was acknowledged to be now, 
in retrospect, two different things. The first is it was an amnesty for 
3 million people who entered our country in violation of our 
immigration laws. The second thing we have come to realize in 
retrospect is it was a complete and total failure when it came to 
securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.
  Some have speculated it was the Federal Government's failure to 
provide employers a means to verify the eligibility of prospective 
employees that they could work legally in the country, and certainly 
the failure on the Federal Government's part is a large part of what is 
to blame. The corollary of that is the lack of employer sanctions for 
hiring an illegal workforce. In the past year, we have seen only three 
sanctions filed against employers for hiring illegal aliens to work in 
the United States.
  Some have said the reason that bill failed is because it didn't have 
any provision for a legal workforce. I am somewhat sympathetic to that 
argument because I do support comprehensive immigration legislation, 
but starting first with border security. We know our inability to 
control our borders is not only resulting in massive waves of illegal 
immigration, but we also know it is a national security risk because 
anyone who has the money to pay a human smuggler or has their wits 
about them enough to make it over here on their own could literally 
walk or swim or drive across our border because it is wholly 
unprotected between the authorized ports of entry. We know our Border 
Patrol is sorely undermanned with only about 11,000 Border Patrol 
agents for a 2,000-mile southern border, and contrast that with 39,000 
police officers in the city of New York alone.
  So we can see the Border Patrol has been vastly out manned and 
outnumbered when it comes to the number of people coming across. There 
were 1.1 million illegal aliens apprehended last year alone.
  The problem with the 1986 amnesty is that it led to additional 
illegal immigration, and we now have approximately 12 million 
undocumented immigrants--people who have come to this country in 
violation of our immigration laws. And we have come to learn that our 
booming economy is a vast magnet for people who want a better life. 
While we can all understand that on a very basic human level, we also 
know the U.S. Government and the people of this country cannot accept 
anyone and everyone who wants to come into this country in violation of 
our immigration laws. Thus, we have a right, as every sovereign nation 
has, to regulate the flow of people across our borders in our Nation's 
best interests.
  I worry that the legislation that is now pending before this body, 
the so-called Hagel-Martinez compromise, would actually result in a 
further magnet for illegal immigration because it, in part, rewards 
people for coming into the country in violation of our immigration 
laws.
  It causes me great concerns in other respects as well. For example, 
the proposal would not be closed to felons and serial criminal 
offenders. Nor would it be closed to people who had their day in court 
but failed to comply with the deportation order, showing tremendous 
disrespect not only for our laws but for the safety and welfare of the 
American people.
  We also know the current bill that is pending before us prevents 
information sharing by the Department of Homeland Security to root out 
fraud, which is another problem with the 1986 amnesty because people 
were able to generate fraudulent documents to qualify for that amnesty. 
We know that false documents are a tremendous vulnerability of the 
American people to terrorists and criminals and others who want to come 
across our borders, and this bill does not do enough to allow us to 
protect ourselves by investigating and prosecuting that kind of fraud, 
by sharing information, and that is why we need some amendments to be 
argued and voted on by the Senate to fix the serious gaps in this bill.
  But perhaps one of the gravest concerns I have is this proposed 
compromise does not protect American workers. Indeed, under this bill, 
up to 12 million people will be able to get green cards. In other 
words, they will gain the status of a legal permanent resident and a 
path to American citizenship. This is without regard to whether our 
economy is in a boom status as it is now, with about 4.8 percent 
unemployment, or whether our economy is in a recession, where Americans 
are more likely to be out of work and competing with these 12 million 
new green card holders for employment. So I believe we need a provision 
in this bill that provides for a true temporary worker program that can 
reflect the ups and downs of the economy.
  Under this bill there will be a massive one-way migration of people 
from countries in Central America and Mexico and South America into the 
United States, and no incentives for their return and for maintaining 
their ties to their family and their culture and their country in a way 
that ultimately benefits their country as well. No country on Earth can 
sustain an economic body blow of a permanent migration of its work 
force out of that country. But this proposal this creates a temporary 
worker category that is not temporary, but is instead an alternative 
path to citizenship. So even though there are some who have talked 
about a guest worker program or a temporary worker program, this is 
neither. This is an alternative path to citizenship for 12 million 
people, permanent status in the United States, regardless of whether 
our economy is good or our economy is bad. And when it is bad, these 
individuals will prove stiff competition indeed for America and people 
born in these United States, or legal immigrants.
  There is also no provision in this bill--and this is another concern 
I have for the American worker--that there be a willing employer and a 
willing employee. In other words, under this bill individuals can come 
into the country and self petition for green cards or legal permanent 
residency. Thus, here again, another important protection for the 
American worker is totally ignored under this bill.
  Another grave concern I have, and this goes back to 1986, is there is 
absolutely no provision made for employer verification of the 
eligibility of prospective employees. As some have said, this is deja 
vu all over again because the Judiciary Committee, as you know, Mr. 
President, and as the distinguished ranking member knows, did not have 
jurisdiction over that provision of the bill, so it had to be drafted 
by the Finance Committee. Yet there is absolutely no amendment pending. 
I don't know of any plans--maybe there are plans that I am just unaware 
of--that would provide employers the means to verify that individuals 
are indeed eligible to work in the United States and discourage, if not 
eliminate, the use of fraudulent documents to claim that authority to 
work in the United States. Without that, without border security, 
without interior enforcement, and without employer verification and 
sanctions for those who do not play by the rules, this bill provides 
another invitation to massive illegal immigration and constitutes a 
reward to those who have come into our country in violation of our 
laws.

[[Page S3188]]

  My ultimate concern is we will have a vote on a motion to close off 
debate on this compromise tomorrow morning. There are a number of 
pending amendments that I intend to offer. Of course we know the Senate 
largely operates by unanimous consent. There is also a desire by 
Senators right before any recess to get on to their homes and their 
families and back to their States. But this is an extremely important 
bill, I would say, even more than most of the issues we consider here 
because it is a matter of national security. It is a matter of 
maintaining the confidence of the American people because, frankly, the 
American people believe we let them down in 1986. They believe the 
Senate is not serious about border security, is not serious about 
workplace enforcement, and the only way we are going to be able to 
demonstrate that we are serious is to have a full and fair debate, to 
allow amendments and votes on those amendments on the floor. So far, 
all we have been met with is obstructionism because we have been denied 
the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on essential amendments that 
are necessary to improve this bill.
  I know we will have a vote tomorrow morning. Unless there is some 
good-faith attempt to reach some accommodation to allow Senators to 
offer those amendments that would improve the bill in the respects I 
have pointed out, then I expect that we will have a long weekend, and 
perhaps beyond, so there will be an opportunity for us to have the kind 
of debate that is reflective of the world's greatest deliberative body 
and which discharges the responsibility we have to protect the American 
people, to secure our borders, to make sure we are absolutely serious 
about enforcing our laws, while at the same time we enact comprehensive 
border security and immigration reform.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                 Darfur

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not speak for long. I do this 
because I wish to speak about the severe humanitarian crisis in Darfur, 
Sudan.
  It has been almost 2 years since the Congress, in a bipartisan effort 
of both the House and Senate, declared the atrocities in Darfur, Sudan, 
to be genocide. That is a word not passed around easily in these halls.
  Then, about a year and a half ago, the administration publicly 
reached the same conclusion. I know there was debate within the 
administration whether they would use that word. I commend President 
Bush for reaching the same conclusion.
  What worries me, here is a case where the Senate, the House of 
Representatives, and the President of the United States, all came 
together to call the atrocities in Darfur, in our day and our age, 
genocide. But since those declarations, the United States and other 
nations have failed to devise an effective strategy to bring peace to 
the desperate people of that remote, war-ravaged region. The human cost 
of this failure has been unimaginable. It is staggering.
  Earlier this month, President Bush celebrated International Women's 
Day. There is no cause for celebration for the women of Darfur, 
thousands of whom have been the victims of rape and other acts of 
sexual violence inflicted by Government security forces and the 
militias they support. They use rape as a method of terror.
  There have been systematic massacres, rape, torture and the burning 
of hundreds of villages, homes--often with the families inside. Darfur 
has been pillaged and the lives of its people destroyed.
  The Government of Sudan has repeatedly attempted to disguise its role 
in the violence so it has been impossible to ascertain an accurate 
death toll, but somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 people have died 
of murder or starvation.
  Many thousands more have ended up in squalid refugee camps after 
their homes have been reduced to ashes by the Government-sponsored 
jinjaweit militias.
  At the same time this is happening, we see Sudan's President, Omar 
Hassan al-Bashir, squander $4.5 million, in this desperately poor 
country, to purchase a 118-foot, 172-ton Presidential yacht so he can 
entertain foreign dignitaries and create a perverse facade of Sudanese 
progress and sophistication.

  This is progress and sophistication, or a reflection of the ego of a 
leader? Is it progress and sophistication, that children have been 
murdered and members of the family murdered in front of other members 
of the family?
  Then, to make this even worse, the President of Sudan, in order to 
transport it by land from Port Sudan to Khartoum, required severing 132 
electric lines, plunging neighborhood after neighborhood into temporary 
darkness.
  It is difficult to conceive of the level of greed, arrogance, and 
twisted logic that would cause the leader of a desperately impoverished 
country to waste millions of dollars on a ridiculously ostentatious 
yacht to cruise the Nile River while thousands of the Sudanese children 
he is supposed to be protecting have fallen victim to the jinjaweit's 
brutality.
  Tens of thousands more are at serious risk of death by starvation, 
malnutrition, disease, and mayhem. Under Secretary General for 
Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egeland, recently stated that Darfur has 
returned to ``the abyss'' of early 2004 when the region was ``the 
killing fields of this world.''
  The scale of atrocities occurring in Darfur is appalling. For too 
long the international community has been doing too little, hoping 
against reality that somehow the situation would improve.
  Instead, in recent weeks we have seen the violence spread across the 
border into Chad. The Government of Sudan is actively exporting the 
Darfur crisis to its neighbor by providing arms to the jinjaweit and 
allowing them to attack Chadian refugees and villagers, seizing their 
livestock and killing anyone who resists.
  As a result, 200,000 of the residents of Chad have been forced from 
their homes. They have become displaced people in their own country.
  Earlier this month, the Senate, and rightly so, unanimously passed S. 
Res. 383. It calls on our President to take immediate steps to help 
improve security in Darfur. The resolution proposed a no-fly zone over 
Darfur and the deployment of NATO troops to support the African Union 
forces currently on the ground.
  The African Union has done its best, but with only 7,000 troops, 
inadequate resources, and a weak mandate to patrol this vast area, it 
has been unable to prevent the militias from continuing to attack 
civilians with impunity.
  I strongly support a role for NATO to bolster the African Union's 
mission, until the U.N. peacekeeping mission can be fully deployed, 
which could take a year or more.
  Only a few nations have the trained troops to contribute and their 
numbers are stretched thin among many of the U.N. missions around the 
world. But NATO troops on the ground could reinforce the African Union 
force with their superior command and control and intelligence-
gathering capabilities.
  Until recently, the Bush administration refused to support additional 
troops. However, in the last several weeks, President Bush has shown a 
renewed interest in Darfur. On March 9, in a hearing before the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified 
the administration is committed to the deployment of a larger 
peacekeeping force, and I agree with her on that.
  Despite the encouraging rhetoric, the administration continues to 
underfund the African Union mission. The $161 million requested in the 
Fiscal Year 2006 supplemental request for peacekeeping in Darfur will 
only cover the U.S. share to sustain the current number of troops.
  It will not do anything to pay for the additional troops that 
President Bush has finally acknowledged that we need. With people dying 
needlessly every week, the President must address the Darfur crisis 
more urgently.
  Earlier this week, I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment, which was 
accepted, to the FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to 
add $50 million in peacekeeping funds for Darfur.
  The funds in the supplemental bill for peacekeeping in Darfur were 
barely adequate to support the current African Union mission through 
the rest of

[[Page S3189]]

this fiscal year. The additional $50 million will go to training and 
equipping the African Union force that has done its best despite scarce 
training and too little heavy equipment.
  There is no question the Government of Sudan bears a great deal of 
responsibility for the crimes against humanity that have occurred and 
continue to occur within its borders, and now in eastern Chad.
  It has sponsored brutal militias, hampered the African Union 
peacekeepers, and impeded the work of the international relief 
organization.
  Most recently, it has opposed reconstituting the African Union force 
as a U.N. force, presumably fearing that the United Nations could pose 
a challenge to its own ability to act with impunity in a part of the 
world that is often beyond the spotlight of public scrutiny.
  But we in this country, the richest, most powerful Nation on Earth, a 
country blessed with so many advantages, have done too little to stop 
the genocide in Sudan. Many more lives could have been saved if we and 
other nations had shown stronger leadership.
  This is not just an economic or military issue; this is a moral 
issue. With all the blessings this country receives, we have a moral 
responsibility to stop genocide.
  In our history, we have known what has happened when we have moved 
too slowly when we had a chance to stop genocide. We either moved too 
slowly or we did not move at all when genocide occurred.
  Let us match the rhetoric with resources to support the number of 
troops needed to do the job. Let us set an example by our own 
leadership to the rest of the world that we will put an end to the 
violence. This is something on which I believe all Americans--
Republicans and Democrats--would agree. It is something that, if we 
believe in a higher calling, we will do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy, ranking member on 
the Judiciary Committee.
  I have received just this afternoon in my office some disturbing news 
in the form of correspondence from the Congressional Budget Office. It 
suggests a number of areas where the amendment we are talking about 
here today, No. 3424, the immigration so-called compromise, violates 
our budget and the rules of the Senate.
  Let me read from the correspondence we have received. This is 
something, as you know, Mr. President, as a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, that we never discussed at all. It is not a matter we spent 
any time at all discussing as we moved forward with legislation which 
ultimately cleared that committee and came to the floor--legislation 
which I thought was not good legislation and which I opposed, and so 
did the Senator from Texas, who just relinquished the Chair. We didn't 
discuss the financial impact of the legislation before us.
  One of the things our rules of the Senate require is that if a bill 
is on the floor that is in violation of a budget we have adopted, it is 
subject to a budget point of order. I am not going to make that budget 
point of order now because I am sure someone here would want to move to 
waive that budget point of order, but I am giving the heads up to those 
who are supporting this bill that it is a budget buster.
  We have not yet begun to figure out how much this legislation will 
cost. I will be quoting from the Congressional Budget Office, which is 
the authoritative department to determine these matters. They have 
given us a preliminary report.
  Let me read from the correspondence they have given and which I have 
just received.

       CBO has estimated the cost of some--but not all--of the 
     provisions of the proposed Hagel-Martinez amendment to the 
     immigration bill. The version we are working with is labeled 
     O:/MDM/MDM06671 and was provided to us this morning.

  One reason they got this this morning was that this so-called 
compromise which was hatched yesterday was not even printed until 10 
o'clock last night.
  We have been talking about these problems for weeks and we produced 
the bill that came out of committee--I don't know what name to put on 
it; the Specter-Kennedy-McCain amendment, the bill that came out of 
committee--and it was crushed on the floor of the Senate, with 60 
people refusing to move to a final up-or-down vote on it, 60 to 39.
  We have now the compromise desperately put together by people--well 
meaning, no doubt, but none of whom bring any particular experience, 
knowledge to the problem facing us. And I assure you, if in the 5 days 
of markup in Judiciary Committee we didn't discuss the actual cost of 
this program, I am sure, as they worked feverishly into the night last 
night, they didn't consider it either. They had no idea. But this was a 
political discussion about how to put a bill together that politically 
might pass around here regardless of the details of it.
  Frankly, we are going to have to deal with the specifics of illegal 
immigration. It is too important to treat it at a superficial level.
  There are bills which, when we come up to a recess, the leader has to 
push, and you always try to do those things, and people make 
compromises, and they pass. But this is not a normal bill at all. The 
American people care about it, and we owe them some things.
  I don't think there are any Senators here who haven't been back to 
their States and made some commitments and stated some principles that 
they thought are critical to a good immigration bill, and I want them 
to be aware of what we are talking about.
  The bill number which the Congressional Budget Office referenced is 
the pending amendment, No. 3424, to the Frist motion to commit.
  Let me continue now with what we received from the Congressional 
Budget Office:

       The figures in this e-mail do NOT include costs associated 
     with the conditional nonimmigrant provisions, which we are 
     still working on. They also do NOT include revenue losses and 
     outlays for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which we will be 
     getting from the Joint Tax Committee and which results 
     largely from the conditional non-immigrant provisions. Those 
     revenue losses and Earned Income Tax Credit outlays may be 
     significant.

  I will talk about the average salary of most of the workers who are 
here illegally today and those workers who will be regularized, placed 
on permanent resident status, given a green card, and placed on a 
pathway to citizenship. As you look at those salaries, you will see 
that they fall in the classic earned income tax credit range.
  I have had occasion for some time to wrestle with the earned income 
tax credit. A lot of people oppose it entirely. You file your tax 
return, and if you don't owe any taxes and you have a lower income, you 
get a tax rebate from the Government. You don't pay taxes; they give 
you an average rebate. I submit that salaries for these workers are 
going to be pretty close to the average recipient of the earned income 
tax credit benefit. The average recipient gets $2,400 a year by way of 
a tax credit. Persons who are working here illegally today are not 
currently getting the earned income tax credit, but if we regularize 
them and make them permanent residents, they will. That will cost us a 
lot of money.
  The Congressional Budget Office is saying they haven't considered 
those numbers yet in the cost of this bill, but they are real and 
significant, as I say they, indeed, are.
  They go on to say this:

       With those important caveats, estimated outlays are about 
     $2 billion for the first 5 years--2007-2011--and $12 billion 
     for the first 10 years--2007-2016. The final figures will be 
     bigger than those. Most of those costs are for Medicaid and 
     Food Stamp programs.

  They say those are not the final figures. The final figures will be 
bigger. It didn't include the earned income tax credit.
  They go on to say this:

       Outlays in the succeeding 10 years will be greater. The 
     bill would impose mandates on State and local governments 
     with costs that would exceed the threshold established in the 
     Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in at least 1 of the first 5 
     years after they would take effect.

  I ask unanimous consent that this message from the Congressional 
Budget Office be printed in the Record so that my colleagues can begin 
to look at it and begin to understand that we have a budget problem 
with this bill, among other things.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S3190]]


     From: Paul Cullinan.
     Sent: April 6, 2006.
     To: Ed Corrigan.
     Subject: Partial cost estimate for immigration amendment.

       CBO has estimated the cost of some--but not all--of the 
     provisions of the proposed Hagel-Martinez amendment to the 
     immigration bill. The version we are working with is labeled 
     O: MDM MDM 06671 and was provided to us this morning.
       The figures in this e-mail do NOT include costs associated 
     with the conditional nonimmigrant provisions, which we're 
     still working on. They also do NOT include revenue losses and 
     outlays for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which we will be 
     getting from the Joint Tax Committee and which result largely 
     from the conditional non-immigrant provisions. Those revenue 
     losses and EITC outlays may be significant.
       With those important caveats, estimated outlays are about 
     $2 billion for the first five years (2007-2011) and $12 
     billion for the first ten years (2007-2016). The final 
     figures will be bigger than those. Most of those costs are 
     for the Medicaid and Food Stamp programs.
       Outlays in the succeeding 10 years will be greater. The 
     bill would impose mandates on State and local governments 
     with costs that would exceed the threshold established in the 
     Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in at least one of the first 
     five years after they would take effect.
       If you have any questions, please call Paul Cullinan, Eric 
     Rollins, or myself.
                                                     Bob Sunshine,
                           Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senate Judiciary Committee, under 
the 2006 budget resolution, has only $6 million remaining. We are 
talking about a minimum of $2 billion in costs, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, under the first 5 years of this 
immigration bill which is before us today, but the Judiciary Committee, 
under our budget resolution, has only $6 million remaining in its 
direct spending allocation for the next 5 years.
  CBO's preliminary estimate, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office letter I just read, is that amendment No. 3224 will spend at 
least $2 billion during that period and likely much more over that 
period and the next 5 years. This far exceeds the $6 million--it might 
sound large to you, but in the scheme of things we discuss today, it is 
a paltry sum--allocated to the committee under the budget.
  On this basis, we need to review what we should do as a Senate. I 
think it is appropriate and the right thing that the Senate confront 
the question and make a decision as to whether we should waive that 
point of order and go forward with this legislation or not waive it, in 
which case the bill would be subject to failure.
  I note that the Budget Committee has responsibilities in this, and 
every aspect of that has not been completed to date, and it may be 
premature to move to make such a motion at this time. I am sharing this 
with everyone so they can be prepared to think through the consequences 
of this cost, which has not been discussed whatsoever. In fact, if you 
listen to some of the proponents of the legislation before us, if we 
just pass this bill, it is going to make us all rich, everybody is 
going to do better, for the first time people are going to pay taxes, 
the economy is going to improve, and the average guy is going to be 
fine. The reality is, that did not happen in 1986 and it is not going 
to happen this time because many of these benefits are such that they 
are not available to people here illegally. Under this law they will 
become legal.

  We are going to see a rise in costs to our Government beyond that 
which is permitted by the budget we all voted on, we all agreed to, and 
we all said we need to stand by. I should not say ``all,'' but enough 
voted to pass the budget. The budget is a very significant and 
important document. Many of us take very seriously this cap we agreed 
to place on spending and agreed not to pass legislation that would 
break those caps, even if we like the underlying amendment or bill that 
would spend money. That violates the budget. On many occasions I have 
felt it my duty to vote ``no'' because I agreed to a budget number. 
This Congress and this Senate has agreed to budget caps. The very 
significant factor is that today we now know the Hagel-Martinez 
amendment violates that Budget Act. I am sure the committee bill also 
did, but it would appear this may be further along.
  We have seen amnesty before in our country, in 1986, and the record 
is clear that American taxpayers did pay the cost of the fiscal deficit 
created by the 3 million beneficiaries under the 1986 amnesty. Of 
course, the original estimates were that 1 million, 1.5 million people 
would qualify for amnesty in 1986. Now they are estimating 12 million. 
But, in fact, 3 million showed up in 1986 and claimed the benefits of 
amnesty, many using documents that were dubious.
  A 1997 study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies 
estimated that the 3 million newly legalized aliens in the 1986 amnesty 
had generated a net fiscal deficit of $24 billion in the short decade 
that passed since their arrival. The 3 million cost the Government $24 
billion. That is a very large sum of money.
  Incidentally, when Congress passed the 1986 amnesty bill, it 
estimated only 1 million illegal aliens would qualify for that amnesty 
law and draw upon the Treasury. That is how the numbers were out of 
sync.
  There is no doubt about it, American taxpayers will pay if this 
legislation passes. If this, what I consider to be fairly described as 
amnesty, passes, the American taxpayers will pay the cost of this 
amnesty and it will be a drain on our programs that are designed to 
provide health care and assistance to American citizens and those who 
came here lawfully to achieve legal permanent status.
  According to the Pew Hispanic Center report from last year, the 
average family income in 2003 for unauthorized migrants in the country 
for less than 10 years was $25,700, while those who had been in the 
country a decade or more earned $29,000.
  Given that the average family income for illegal immigrants is just 
above the 2006 Federal poverty line of $20,000, it is not surprising 
that many of these families will likely rely on social service programs 
to meet their basic needs. That is what we know will occur.
  Though the exact cost of this new amnesty is impossible to absolutely 
determine, certainly CBO is providing a low figure that they can verify 
as of this date. We can learn a lot by looking at existing studies that 
give us a glimpse at the cost of illegal immigration to our social 
program. For example, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 
in 2001, 31 percent of illegal households used at least one of four 
major welfare programs: Medicaid, SSI, TANF, which is temporary 
assistance for needy families, which is a basic welfare program, or 
food stamps. That is a very large number. It is not improbable 
considering the other numbers about the average income, knowing that 
there are so many below the poverty line.
  The Urban Institute estimates in 2000, 47,000 families in the United 
States headed by one or two illegal aliens received TANF, the temporary 
assistance for needy families, on behalf of their children--47,000 is a 
pretty dramatic number.
  Further, if each of these families received greater than $1,000 a 
year, the amount spent for a TANF household by illegal aliens could 
easily reach tens of millions of dollars.
  I see others who wish to speak and I will follow up on this later. I 
am saying we have to deal with the reality. Unfortunately, we have not 
spent a lot of time thinking through the full consequences of our 
actions. We have not had economists, we have not had experts, we have 
not had Government officials, we have not had professors and scientists 
discuss with us the impact of this legislation and how we can pass 
legislation that would best help those who come here, and how we can do 
so in a way that does not adversely impact the Treasury of the United 
States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business so I can engage the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3191]]

                             Joint Inquiry

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks 
of September 11, 2001, Congress convened a bipartisan, bicameral joint 
inquiry into the activities of the intelligence community before and 
after the attacks. I had the opportunity to serve on the joint inquiry 
and I am proud of the work that was accomplished there.
  In December of 2002, a report was issued in which we stated that the 
inspector general of the CIA should ``conduct investigations and 
reviews as necessary to determine whether and to what extent personnel 
at all levels should be held accountable for any omission, commission, 
or failure to meet professional standards in regards to the 
identification, prevention, or disruption of terrorist attacks.''
  The report went on to state that the Director of the CIA should take 
appropriate action in response to the inspector general's review.
  The CIA Inspector General completed his report in June 2005. I was 
surprised that the report took so long to complete, but I am impressed 
with its quality. After the report of the 9/11 Commission and the joint 
inquiry itself, it is one of the most thorough examinations of the 
intelligence community activity before September 11. It provides a 
unique perspective and makes a number of findings that in my view 
should be available to the American people as part of the historical 
record. It also makes a number of recommendations that should be 
carefully considered.
  The public has a right to see these recommendations consistent with 
the protection of our national security. The American people should be 
able to read the report and decide for themselves whether the 
recommendations of the CIA inspector general have been carried out in a 
satisfactory manner. Both the chairman and the vice chairman of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee have supported the release of this 
report.
  As Chairman Roberts has put it, ``The deaths of nearly 3,000 citizens 
on September 11, 2001, gives the American people a strong interest in 
knowing what the [inspector general] found and whether those whose 
performance was lacking will be held accountable.''
  Despite the chairman's request, the CIA has decided not to act on the 
inspector general's recommendations at all. Not to act at all. It is 
important to note that the inspector general did not recommend that 
certain individuals be held accountable. The inspector general merely 
recommended that the action or inaction of certain individuals be 
examined to determine whether they should be held accountable. CIA 
Director Porter Goss has refused to allow even this initial 
examination.
  Two months ago I wrote to the Director of the CIA, Mr. Goss, asking 
this report be declassified and released as soon as possible. I 
notified Director Goss if I did not see any progress within 60 days I 
would take action to release this report to the public. It has been 
over 60 days and still the CIA has not responded.
  In the interest of making this report public and available to the 
American people, I ask now unanimous consent the Senate direct the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to make this report available 
to the American people as soon as possible.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree 
with the Senator from Oregon that this is a very important report. We 
were, as everyone knows, viciously attacked on September 11 and in the 
aftermath of those attacks we wanted answers. Many of those answers 
have been found during the last 4 years and some of those answers are 
contained in the report. But the families of the victims of September 
11 have a right to these answers and the American people have a right 
to these answers.
  At the same time, I tell my colleague, we need to be sensitive to the 
fact that there is properly classified national security information 
that is included in this report, and this information needs to be 
protected.
  While the Senator is correct that the CIA has not been adequately 
responsible to him or to me, I suggest that rather than release the 
report immediately in unredacted form, we instead sit down with the 
inspector general and work to redact any information that needs to 
remain classified in the interest of national security.
  So I object to the Senator's request and suggest instead that we work 
with the inspector general to review this report and determine what can 
be appropriately released to the public.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his willingness to work with 
me and for the suggestions and discussions that we have had. I would 
like to suggest that we bring this issue to the inspector general 
immediately and ask the inspector general to release this report within 
30 days. If the Senator agrees to bring this issue to the inspector 
general immediately so that staff can begin working with the inspector 
general's office over the upcoming 2-week recess, and the chairman and 
I can review their progress when we return, then I would be willing to 
withdraw my unanimous consent request that this report be made public 
immediately at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his 
willingness to cooperate on this issue. It is an important one, and I 
look forward to working with him on it. This certainly sounds 
reasonable to me. So I think he is absolutely correct in his 
suggestion. I will be happy to work with him.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, because we are going to work together 
cooperatively to turn this around in the next 30 days, I withdraw my 
unanimous consent request at this time and express my appreciation to 
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Alaska.


                          Excused from voting

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be excused 
from voting until the first vote that occurs on April 24.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, at 10:30 this morning, the proponents of 
what I would have to say is amnesty in the bill that came out of the 
committee, the Kennedy-McCain-Specter bill, or whatever name you want 
to give it, that bill was crushed in this body with 39 votes for and 60 
votes against. It was pulled and removed from the docket and sent back 
to Committee. Then we had a group get together yesterday in an effort 
to develop what they call a compromise. They could see that there was a 
vote coming, and they thought they could put something together, and I 
don't blame them. It has been referred to as the Hagel compromise. But 
we have looked at the bill, and I have to tell my colleagues, if you 
voted against the Kennedy bill this morning, you need not support the 
Hagel compromise because it is fundamentally the same thing. I am going 
to talk about it and explain how it is essentially the same bill.
  I wish it weren't the same thing. I wish it was something we could 
support. I would like to support good legislation. We have an 
opportunity--a real opportunity--to fix the problem with security and 
immigration in our country. Our Nation is at risk. Our borders are not 
under control. However, we have the capacity to do it. It is not that 
hard. I have said it before, and I have explained how we can do it.
  T.J. Bonner, the head of the National Border Patrol Council said: It 
is real simple. You simply fix up the border. You remove the magnet of 
a job by having real workplace enforcement and, all of a sudden, things 
can go in the right direction.
  This bill does none of that. It rewards bad behavior, it would 
encourage illegal behavior in the future, and we should not pass it. It 
is against what so many of us promised that we would

[[Page S3192]]

vote for and we don't have a lot of time. That bill was hatched 
yesterday after a few Senators met somewhere and thought they could 
waltz in and just fix it. They expected all of us to line up and vote 
for it. I don't believe people are going to line up and vote for it.
  They produced this compromise and introduced it, and we didn't get a 
copy until 10 o'clock last night. This compromise that we got late last 
night is 525 pages long. What is in it? Ninety-five percent of what is 
in it, I have to tell you, is just what you voted against and rejected 
this morning. We rejected it because it was not a good piece of 
legislation. It did not do what we promised the American people we were 
going to do as individual Senators. If you look at the expressions of 
Senators as a group, time and again they say things that they believe 
are legitimate principles. These bills do not reflect those principles.
  The President has said he is against an automatic path to 
citizenship, and he is against amnesty, both of which are in this bill. 
The President needs to read it. When you go out and campaign and tell 
people what you are going to do, you need to honor that commitment.
  Let me tell you some of the things that are in this Hagel compromise. 
It triples--triples--the number of employment-based green cards 
available each year. This is not a committee that met yesterday. This 
is a group of people, ad hoc Senators got together and huddled. The 
Senator in the chair there, he has been in a huddle, Quarterback George 
Allen. They got in a huddle, and with very little time and effort to 
study the issues, they came up with this legislation. Ninety-five 
percent of it was what was in the bill we rejected just this morning. 
What does it do? One of the most significant things that we have given 
very little thought to is it triples the number of employment-based 
green cards available each year. It triples the number.
  Currently, there are 140,000 available. Currently, spouses and 
children, if they come in, they count against the 140,000 cap. Under 
the Kennedy bill that we voted down this morning they jumped that 
number to 400,000, and spouses and children didn't count against the 
cap. This bill raises it to 450,000 annually, and spouses and 
children--we estimate about 540,000 more, family members--can come with 
them, and they do not count against the cap. That is pushing a million 
a year. That is a huge change.
  I, personally, am of the view that if we can make our system lawful 
and have it work correctly, we can and will want to increase the 
number. But triple the number, and then increase that number again, by 
allowing spouses and children to come and not count against the cap? 
That is a sixfold increase. Without any hearings? Without any 
economists? Without listening to the labor unions? Without listening to 
business people tell us how many people we really need? Without any 
professors or scientists who understand the impact this kind of huge 
numbers would have? They propose we accept this compromise, and it goes 
beyond the Kennedy proposal that was rejected this morning.
  It changes the amnesty process for the current number of people. 
These 450,000 plus family members are, for the most part people who 
live outside the country. They apply and can come in. So the total 
number who come in with a green card--which means you are a permanent 
resident citizen and you are on an automatic path to citizenship--this 
is supposed to be for those people.
  The message is we want a guest worker program. That is what they 
said. We want a guest worker program. What does that sound like, if you 
are an American citizen trying to evaluate what your legislators are 
doing up here? I hope those American people who are watching are 
following this closely because these are not guest workers.
  Somebody said let's not call it guest workers anymore, let's call it 
temporary workers. But they are not temporary workers either. They get 
a green card. They come in under this new H-2C program, and they are 
able then, on the petition of an employer, to get a green card within 1 
year. If they don't have an employer petition for them, they can self-
petition, which is not the rule now. Now these are supposed to be based 
on employment that is needed.
  President Bush says a company that needs workers certifies they need 
you. Now you can self-certify and within 5 years you can be placed on 
an automatic path to citizenship. They never have to return home. That 
is all I am saying. Anybody who says this is a temporary worker program 
or guest worker program is not correct the way this language is in the 
bill.
  These numbers do not include all that is in the bill. The AgJOBS bill 
came up on the floor a little over a year ago and was debated and 
blocked. Senator Saxby Chambliss, who chairs the Agriculture Committee, 
and a number of us raised objections to that bill. We blocked it. It 
did not go forward. It did not pass.
  They blithely added the whole AgJOBS bill to the committee bill and 
it has now been made part of this compromise. There are 1.5 million who 
can come in under the AgJOBS bill.
  People say we need the talented people. We still have limits on 
talented people who come into the country with high education levels, 
but there is virtually no limit on the number of unskilled workers who 
come into our country. That is not good public policy, I submit. That 
is probably not what you said when you have been out campaigning and 
talking to your constituents around the country.
  Under the current law, before new legislation passes, the United 
States issues 1.1 million green cards a year. That is what we do today, 
and 140,000 of those green cards are available to aliens who are 
sponsored by employers. That is the working group. Under the Hagel-
Martinez compromise bill, the United States would now issue between 2.2 
million and 2.5 million green cards each year, 450,000 of which will be 
employment-based green cards during the years 2007 and 2016. That is 
triple the number of employment-based green cards we currently issue on 
an annual basis, triple the number we currently issue. Although the 
number would be curtailed after a few years, it is still 150,000 more 
than currently issued. After 2016, the number of green cards for 
employer-sponsored aliens would go back to double the current level, at 
290,000.

  They have also increased the employment-based green card cap--that is 
the total limit, over and above the 450,000 that would now be available 
each year under the compromise--by exempting spouses and children from 
counting against the cap. Spouses and children count against the cap 
today. So we triple the number, and we don't count spouses and 
children. Because an average of 1.2 family members accompany 
employment-based green card holders, we estimate that about 540,000 
family members will also get employment-based green cards without 
counting against this cap. That is contrary to what we do today. It is 
contrary to our policy. This is a huge change is all I am saying.
  Maybe after thorough debate we might want to go that far. I doubt it. 
I think we want to increase the number of legal workers who come to our 
country but surge these numbers this much without any discussion 
whatsoever? This means next year we could have 990,000--that is almost 
a million--employment-based green cards issued: 550,000 for the 
workers, 540,000 for the family members. That is equal to the total 
number of green cards we handed out this year for all categories, 
including employment-based, family-based, asylum, refugees, 
cancellation of removal, and so forth.
  Using the estimate from our population chart, based on the CRS data 
and the Pew Hispanic data, the way the new amnesty categories would 
work is as follows. This is what is in the compromise.
  If you are here for 5 or more years--and that includes 8.85 million 
of the 11.5 to 12 million people who are estimated to be here, or 75 
percent of those who are estimated to be here today--what happens to 
you? You are treated just like you were under the Kennedy bill that was 
rejected this morning. You get to stay, work, apply for a green card 
from inside the United States.
  Again, what does green card mean? It means you are a permanent 
resident, eligible for all the social welfare benefits that belong to 
American citizens, No. 1. No. 2, it puts you on a guaranteed path to 
citizenship. This is your

[[Page S3193]]

reward for violating the law by coming in illegally.
  Under this bill, 75 percent of them, 8.85 million would get to stay 
and apply for green cards from inside the United States, just like the 
rejected bill earlier today provided for. And in addition, spouses and 
children would get those green cards as well. And they, spouses and 
children, would get green cards even if they are not in the United 
States.
  So if the person came here to work temporarily, planned to go back to 
his family, didn't have a plan to stay here permanently and intended to 
go back to his country of origin, make a little extra money to help out 
the family, now we have encouraged them to go ahead and bring their 
family here. That would be a large number. That will impact more than 
the 1.1 million who are covered by the bill, according to the 
estimates.
  They do not count against any family or employment caps or green 
cards. We do currently have a limit. We are supposed to have a limit on 
the total number who can come in as permanent workers on the path to 
citizenship so none of these would count against the caps, out of the 
11 to 12 million.
  So 75 percent of the 11.5 million are like that. What about those in 
the compromise? They say we are going to be a little different than the 
Kennedy bill for those 1.4 million people who have been here from 2 to 
5 years. What happens to those that have only been here illegally for 2 
to 5 years? You get to stay legally, and you are able to continue to 
work in the United States while you apply for a work visa if, within 3 
years, at any time during that 3 years, you go across the border 
through a consular office and pick up a nonimmigrant visa that you can 
apply for from the United States. Although the Department of Homeland 
Security Secretary may waive the departure requirement. So you can go 
across the border, go to the office, pick up the thing and come right 
back the same day.
  Spouses and children get the same status. If they came here 
illegally, they get the same green card status, but they don't have to 
go across the border to pick it up, they can get it right here at home. 
If they apply for the H-2C, a new work visa created under title IV, the 
employer can sponsor them for a green card the day they come back into 
the United States.
  The employer can petition that day to get them a green card. Once you 
get that green card, you are a legal, permanent resident, entitled to 
the welfare and governmental benefits of our country.
  What about those who are here for less than 2 years? That is not 
directly addressed in this compromise bill that we now have before us 
that is supposed to solve all of our problems. Unfortunately, it 
doesn't solve them.
  The compromise sponsors will tell you that the people who have been 
here less than 2 years--that is about 1.2 to 1.7 million--will have to 
leave immediately or be deported.
  First, let me ask how many people are being apprehended and deported 
today? Who is going to apprehend and deport these people who are here 
illegally in the last year?
  I raise that as a practical question.
  But under the bill language, you can qualify for the new H-2C worker 
program, even if you are unlawfully present in the United States.
  My legal counsel is a smart reader of the law.
  This is the way the bill explains it. It doesn't say that plainly. It 
says:

       In determining the alien's admissibility as an H-2C 
     nonimmigrant. . . . paragraphs (5), (6)(A), (7), (9)(B) and 
     (9)(C) of section 212(a) may be waived for conduct that 
     occurred before the effective date.

  What does all that mean?
  If you do not have time to put aside the statute, the compromise 
bill, and go back and read the underlying statute, you don't know what 
it means, but if you do that, as my counsel did, you will see that is a 
pretty sneaky maneuver. As I noted, under the new H-2C program, 400,000 
per year can get green cards as workers, and these people will qualify 
for that because those code sections refer to aliens who came here 
illegally and those who have been ordered removed but have come 
illegally will go back into the United States.
  The last bunch, the 1.2 million that have been here less than 2 
years, they are not going to leave this country.
  First of all, nobody is going to come and get them. They are going to 
apply under the new visa program, the H-2C worker program that has 
these huge numbers that we have triple the numbers for. And it 
specifically says in the statute that they will qualify, even if they 
came here illegally or have been apprehended here illegally or 
removed--and removed from the United States--and they have come back 
illegally, they still get to qualify and stay here.
  We don't need to vote for a bill such as that.
  By the way, in reading the bill carefully, my fine staff discovered--
it is kind of hard to do all this when you get a bill last night at 10 
p.m. which is 325 pages--that those here illegally, whom I just 
mentioned, in the last 2 years or have been removed and come back 
illegally, they do not even count against the cap. Why would we want to 
do that?
  I say to you that whoever drafted the bill--I don't really say this 
to the sponsors because the sponsors of the compromise who met for a 
few hours and put this thing together didn't realize who all had worked 
on it. I guess it is the forces who believe that no illegal alien 
should be left behind. So everybody who is here illegally gets to stay 
in the country, and they don't even count against the cap for the green 
card.
  I don't think we ought to welcome back into this country someone who 
has been apprehended, deported and removed from the country and they 
come back again illegally. They ought not to be allowed to stay, 
period, much less be given a permanent status and much less be put on a 
path to citizenship, which this compromise legislation will do.
  We think somebody had to have intended this. Somebody who was 
involved in the writing of this knew what they were doing and 
definitely wanted to include everybody to make sure that they could say 
publicly: Well, if it is 5 years, you know you can stay, but if is less 
than 5 years, you could be removed. None will be removed unless they 
are convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors.
  They basically said you wouldn't be eligible for citizenship if you 
came here after January of 2004. That is not true. The bill covers 
everybody. That is part of the compromise legislation and still part of 
it. It is part of the Kennedy bill that we roundly rejected this 
morning, and it is part of the compromise that is before us now.
  Let me take a few minutes to run over some of the provisions in that 
95 percent of the Kennedy bill that was rejected this morning that 
remains in the Hagel compromise.
  Here are some of the difficulties with it.
  Let us take loophole No. 1: Absconders and some individuals with 
felonies or 3 misdemeanors are not barred from getting amnesty.
  An absconder is somebody who was apprehended by Border Patrol people, 
detained, they did not have time to take him or her out of the country, 
they were busy, they did not have jail space, detention space for them, 
so they release them on bail. That is what they do all over the country 
because we don't take this seriously, and they don't show up when they 
are supposed to be deported. Surprise. They abscond.
  Absconders and some individuals with felonies or three misdemeanors 
are not barred from getting amnesty.
  Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, different crimes make 
aliens ``inadmissible,'' ``deportable,'' or ``ineligible'' for specific 
benefits.
  As written, the Specter substitute--it is included in this bill--only 
requires an alien to show they are not ``inadmissible'' to qualify for 
the amnesty contained in the bill. However, some felonies make an alien 
``inadmissible,'' but some do not.
  Absconders--aliens with final orders of removal who are currently 
watched by ICE immigration officers--should not be eligible for 
amnesty. They remain eligible for this amnesty. The Kyl-Cornyn 
amendment that was blocked by the other side so we couldn't get a vote 
on it, was designed to fix this loophole. It would keep aliens with 
felony convictions or three misdemeanors from being eligible for the 
new amnesty program. Surely, we agree on that. If we had a vote on it, 
I am sure it would pass.

[[Page S3194]]

  But the leader on the other side has managed to block us from getting 
a vote.
  Loophole No. 2: Aliens specifically barred from receiving immigration 
benefits for life because they filed a frivolous asylum application 
will also be able to receive amnesty. Under INA, section 208(d)(6), if 
the Attorney General determines that an alien knowingly filed a 
frivolous asylum application, the alien will be permanently 
ineligible for any benefits under the INA. This bill changes that. On 
page 333, it says: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary shall adjust . . . '' an alien who meets the requirement of 
INN 245B. There is no provision that states that the alien is eligible 
for amnesty if they file a frivolous asylum application. It, therefore, 
gives benefits to aliens previously barred from all immigration 
benefits.

  Loophole No. 3: All aliens who are subject to a final order of 
removal--for some reason you are brought up and the court has ordered 
you removed from the country--who failed to leave pursuant to a 
voluntary departure agreement, they entered into those agreements and 
oftentimes people promise to leave and never leave--or who are subject 
to the reinstatement of a final order of removal because they illegally 
reentered after being ordered removed from the United States are also 
eligible for amnesty.
  I call on my colleagues to look at the bill. On page 353, line 3, the 
bill clearly states that any alien with a final order of removal can 
apply for amnesty. This means that the aliens who have already received 
their day in court have had their case fully litigated, and they have 
been ordered removed and have failed to depart will now be rewarded for 
not following the law and leaving like they were ordered to do. They 
will qualify for this amnesty.
  This will include many of the 37,000 Chinese nationals that China has 
refused to take back. I understand maybe they have agreed to take them 
back in the last day or so, but they have been pretty recalcitrant on 
it. I will be surprised if they are all approved for repatriation.
  But do you see how important this could be.
  Loophole No. 4: Aliens who illegally entered the country multiple 
times are also eligible for amnesty. Page 334, line 8 requires 
continuous physical presence and states than an alien must not have 
departed from the United States before April 5, 2006, except for brief, 
casual or innocent departures. Every time the alien reenters the United 
States illegally, they are committing a criminal offense. But this bill 
rewards those aliens with amnesty also.
  Loophole No. 5: This bill allows aliens who have persecuted anyone on 
account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 
social group or political opinion get amnesty. It fails to make 
persecutors ineligible for amnesty.
  I would have thought that was an oversight until I noticed on page 
363, line 22, that the bill makes those heinous acts bar aliens here 
between 2 and 5 years from amnesty but not those who have been here 
longer. The same bar left out for the 8.8 million who have been here 
for more than 5 years. This will be interpreted as an intentional 
decision of Congress when we pass this bill.
  That is not inadvertent. I don't know why they did that.
  Loophole No. 6: There is no continuous presence or continuous work 
requirement for amnesty. To be eligible to adjust from illegal to legal 
statutes under the bill, the alien must simply have been ``physically 
present in the United States on April 5, 2001,'' and have been 
``employed continuously in the United States'' for 3 of the 5 years 
``since that date.''
  The bill does not say ``employed continuously in the United States 
since that date,'' as some have said. It does not require that 
employment be full time. Which means that it will be interpreted by any 
fair court following the law to mean that the alien will be eligible 
for amnesty if they have been employed in the United States either full 
time, part time, seasonally, or self-employed.
  The bill also allows the time of employment be shortened if the alien 
has attendance in a school. The employment requirement under the 
language, as written, is as broad as possible. Essentially, any alien 
who worked in the United States for 3 out of 5 years any time prior to 
April 5, 2006, will fulfill the eligibility requirements.
  Loophole No. 7: The bill tells the Department of Homeland Security to 
accept ``just and reasonable inferences'' from day labor centers as 
evidence of an alien meeting the bill's work requirements.
  Day labor centers--I am not sure how reliable those can be to make 
major decisions. Some of these are openly and notoriously promoting 
illegal workers.
  Under the bill, an alien can ``conclusively establish'' that he was 
employed in the United States, and it can be either full time, part 
time, seasonally, or self-employed by presenting documents from Social 
Security, the Internal Revenue Service or an employer related to 
employment. The alien meets ``the burden of proving by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the alien has satisfied the requirements'' if the 
alien can demonstrate ``such employment as a matter of just reasonable 
inference.''
  If you can just have a reasonable inference that you have worked, get 
a document from a day labor center, you meet the work requirements. 
Everybody will meet it. No illegal alien will be left behind.
  The bill then states:

       . . . it is the intent of Congress that the [work] 
     requirement . . . be interpreted and implemented in a manner 
     that recognizes and takes into account the difficulties 
     encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment due 
     to the undocumented status of the alien.

  The invitation is there to abuse the system. The invitation for fraud 
is clear.
  Congress is telling the Department of Homeland Security to accept 
pretty much anything as proof of work, and if they don't take it, they 
will be sued and they will win in court because the bill we have 
written says anything goes as valid proof of work.
  Loophole 8: The bill benefits only those who broke the law, not those 
who followed it and got work visas to come to the United States. That 
is a plain fact. If you were here legally on or before April 5, 2001, 
you will not get the benefit of this amnesty. This amnesty benefits you 
only if you came here illegally.
  Loophole 9: The essential worker permanent immigration program for 
nonagriculture low-skilled workers leaves no illegal alien out. It is 
not limited to people outside the United States who want to come here 
to work in the future but includes illegal aliens currently present in 
the United States who do not qualify for the amnesty program in title 
VI, including aliens here for less than 2 years. Under the bill 
language, you can qualify for this new program to work as a low-skilled 
permanent immigrant even if you are unlawfully present in the United 
States.
  The bill specifically states:

       In determining the alien's admissibility as an H-2C . . .

  The program is specifically intended to apply to absconders. There 
are 400,000 absconders out there now that we are trying to apprehend 
and trying to deport. They have been ordered deported yet they 
absconded; illegal aliens who were in removal proceedings and signed a 
voluntary departure agreement but never left, many of them did that, 
and illegal aliens already removed from the United States but who have 
come back.
  Loophole No. 10: The annual numerical cap on this program is a 
completely artificial cap. If the 400,000 cap per year is reached, what 
happens then? The cap immediately adjusts itself to make more room 
under the cap. I kid you not. If the cap is reached, an additional 
80,000 visas can be given out that year and the cap will go up 
automatically the next year as much as 20 percent. Even if the cap 
stays at 400,000 per year, we will have a minimum of 2.4 million low-
skilled permanent--not part-time--immigrants in the first 6 years, the 
length of the H-2C visa if the individual did not file for a green 
card.
  I see the Democratic leader. I have been going over some of the 
things in the bill that I think the American people and maybe our 
colleagues are not aware of. It is a breathtaking piece of legislation. 
It is something that jeopardizes our ability to be successful in the 
Senate in passing good legislation. The compromise will not deal with 
the problems I mentioned today. I am very disappointed.

[[Page S3195]]

  I urge my colleagues, if you said you would not vote for amnesty, you 
should not vote for this compromise. If you voted against the Kennedy-
Specter-McCain committee bill that came out today--and the vote was 60-
39 against it--you should not vote for this bill. It is essentially the 
same thing.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I so appreciate the courtesy of my friend 
from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate your courtesy so very much.
  Mr. President, the Democrats continue to fight for strong border 
enforcement and comprehensive immigration reform. This compromise is 
the second bipartisan plan we have supported, this Martinez amendment 
which is now before the Senate. We are happy to welcome Senator Frist. 
He has been very cooperative in working to get this bill where it is 
now, to the Senate, at this time. It is a comprehensive, tough, smart 
approach that we have advocated all along.
  Unfortunately, other Republicans seem intent on delaying and 
defeating this compromise. We are ready to move forward, but a group of 
Republican Senators want to slow this matter down, it appears. If not 
for them, this legislation could move forward. We would head into the 
recess with a bipartisan victory for the American people.
  Although this compromise is not perfect, it still is the right 
comprehensive approach. It is ``enforcement plus,'' tough reforms to 
protect our border and crack down on employers who hire illegally plus 
it will bring the millions of undocumented immigrants out of the 
shadows.
  The Republicans are divided, obviously, on this issue. We must 
protect this fragile compromise and those bent on gutting this bill 
with hostile amendments. We still must ensure that this comprehensive 
approach is not lost when the bill reaches conference with the House of 
Representatives.
  Therefore, I have suggested to the distinguished majority leader that 
the conferees on this be the Judiciary Committee. There would still be 
the two-vote majority that we have on all conference committees. These 
men and women who make up the Judiciary Committee fully understand this 
legislation. I believe they would make sure the Senate's position was 
protected.
  I have also said in addition to that we should have a limited number 
of amendments. I have made that proposal to the distinguished majority 
leader.

  I believe it is a test of leadership for President Bush to see what 
he can do to help bring everyone into this program. We do not need this 
matter derailed.
  I will meet with Senator Frist at approximately 8:30 again tonight 
and see if there is something we can work out. Here he is. So I hope 
there is something we can do.
  I have, as I indicated, suggested that the Judiciary Committee 
members be conferees and we have a limited number of amendments. It 
sounds fair. It sounds reasonable, to me. I hope President Bush, who 
has talked about immigration reform, would get involved and help us 
reach the finish line.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I said this earlier this morning: we find 
ourselves at an interesting moment. This morning we had a cloture vote 
which gave us the opportunity to start afresh. We started in a very 
positive way in that we had a strong bipartisan show of support for an 
amendment, the Martinez-Hagel amendment. That is a good alternative. 
That is what we will be voting on tomorrow morning.
  We left that meeting with the understanding that we would be able to 
debate amendments and bring up amendments and discuss amendments to 
this issue of immigration given the fact that it is a complex issue. 
And I think this Senate has come to the real point where we agree it is 
going to take a comprehensive approach to address the illegal and 
undocumented people coming into this country across our borders. That 
is real progress over the last week.
  However, the problem we have, we have not been given the opportunity 
to treat each of these colleagues in this room fairly, allowing them to 
come forward and offer their amendments and to have them debated, to 
improve, to modify, to probably win some and to lose some, but to help 
shape legislation as we did on other bills, including the 
transportation bill, highway bill, other large, complex bills in this 
Senate.
  Over the course of the day it was my expectation as we set out this 
morning, we take a step forward in terms of debating an amendment and 
looking at the overall immigration bill and offering amendments on that 
immigration bill to improve it. Yet here we are, 10 hours later, and we 
have made absolutely no progress.
  The amendments that were first offered on this bill were a week ago, 
Wednesday of last week, the Kyl amendment. To this day, we have not 
been able to have a vote on that Kyl amendment, the Dorgan amendment, 
or the Isakson amendment, all of which have been on the table and 
discussed, but we are not allowed to vote on them. It takes unanimous 
consent, all of us working together to do that.
  The problem is, unless the Senate is able to work its will, we are 
not ever going to be able to finish a bill and all the good we want to 
do in addressing immigration will come to naught today or tomorrow and 
in the near future. That is the tragedy.
  I still think we have an opportunity to reverse that. What I 
recommend, and I will talk to the Democratic leader shortly, is that we 
proceed and take up the Kyl amendment and that we debate it, and we 
already have had sufficient debate. We can vote on it and dispose of 
that and take that next amendment, the Dorgan amendment, and vote on 
that, dispose of that, and take up the Isakson amendment, and vote on 
that, and then develop some good will.
  I think, again, most everyone in this Senate wants to move this bill 
forward, see where we are, and then continue through the evening and 
the night in order to consider other amendments. That would be the 
normal process and the process I would expect.
  I will be talking to the Democratic leader and I hope we can make 
progress and do just that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am a little puzzled as to why the 
distinguished Democratic leader needed to come to the Senate at this 
time because, as he said, there is going to be a conversation between 
him and the majority leader in 15 minutes.
  We all know where we are. We all know the obstacles we face. But we 
also know that people of good will need to sit down together and 
implement the bipartisan agreement made after a lot of labor and hard 
work.
  All I can say is I am a little puzzled, but I still hope in 15 
minutes the conversation between two individuals of good will would 
agree to move forward with a process. That is, obviously, the will of 
the majority of this Senate.
  I am puzzled, but I hope the conversation that takes place in about 
15 minutes between the two leaders would bear fruit and the details of 
what that agreement would be would, obviously, be between the two 
leaders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me salute those on the floor who have 
been so instrumental in bringing us to this point.
  I look over and see Senator Martinez, who has worked very hard to 
find a bipartisan compromise which I now support. I thank him for that 
leadership.
  I say the same of Senator McCain and Senator Graham and so many 
others who have gathered here today. They are people of good will who 
generally want to pass a bill, as I do. The same can be said for many 
on our side of the aisle who have spent an extraordinary amount of time 
trying to find this common ground.
  But let's be very blunt about where we are at the moment. It is 8:15 
on Thursday night. Tomorrow is the last day of the session before a 2-
week recess.
  Clearly, if we don't reach some agreement as to how we are going to 
deal with this bill when we return after the Easter recess, it really 
is a troubling situation. I hope it is not a situation that would 
jeopardize the bill. We are trying to come up with a reasonable number 
of amendments. Yesterday, we

[[Page S3196]]

calculated there were 228 amendments filed to the pending bill. It is 
physically impossible to deal with that number of amendments. We know 
that. As the whip on this side, I have faced 100 or more amendments and 
had to try to talk Members out of them. At this point, we are trying to 
reach a reasonable number.
  We have been given a list of potential amendments on the Republican 
side. I will tell you that almost without exception, they are authored 
by Senators who have expressly stated on the floor they want to defeat 
this bill. So at some point, we have to acknowledge the obvious. 
Senators should have the opportunity, I suppose, to express themselves, 
but if the purpose of the amendments is just to drag this out once we 
return to the point where it never passes, we have done a great 
disservice.
  It was not that long ago that we gathered on the floor of the third 
floor of this Capitol in the press room congratulating ourselves on 
what we had achieved on a bipartisan basis. Supposedly there was a 
bipartisan will to move forward. We need the same thing now. And we 
need to acknowledge that every Senator who wants to offer every 
amendment cannot be allowed to do so, if we are ever going to complete 
action on the bill. Both sides have to be reasonable in the amount of 
amendments that will be offered or nothing will happen.
  The final point the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, made, is equally 
important. We want the conference committee to be a working committee 
that understands the bill. The clearest way to achieve that is to have 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, with 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats, 
represent our interests, if the bill ever passes in the Senate. We 
think it is going to be an arduous process facing a House where the 
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has passed a bill far 
different than the one we are considering in the Senate today. I don't 
think that is an unreasonable request by the Senator from Nevada. It 
reflects a two-vote plurality for the Republicans, as is usually the 
case, and brings the people to this conference committee who have 
worked on this bill the longest and the hardest. That is what we put on 
the table.
  I sincerely hope that before we adjourn this evening we can announce 
an agreement to move forward. If we don't, I fear that tomorrow there 
will be a race for the airports without this resolved, and we will wait 
for 2 weeks in the hopes that when we return we will have the same 
spirit of bipartisan cooperation. We may and we may not. We shouldn't 
miss this chance, this historic opportunity to seize this moment and to 
pass comprehensive immigration reform which starts with enforcement of 
our borders, enforcement against employers who are misusing those who 
are undocumented, and a legal pathway so that those who have lived in 
the shadows and in fear for so long finally have a chance to prove 
themselves, in a long and difficult process, that they are in a 
position to be legal participants as part of our great democracy.
  Tonight may be the test as to whether we can achieve that. I hope 
before we close down the session tonight, it is with the good news that 
we have reached a bipartisan agreement; otherwise, I am very concerned 
about the fate of this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. He has 
been involved in many, probably too many, conversations we have had on 
this issue and meetings and gatherings. It is very interesting. 
Everybody is expressing the same desire, yet we can't quite get there. 
That is hard to understand.
  I would like to make one comment to my friend from Illinois about 
conferees. One, I am confident it will be a fair conference. Obviously, 
in my personal view, the Judiciary Committee will be the appropriate 
conference. But that is a privilege and a right and a responsibility of 
the majority leader. We know the way it works around here. The majority 
leader appoints conferees. The majority leader wants to resolve this. 
He doesn't want the legislation gutted or destroyed in conference. We 
have worked too hard to get where we are. We have to proceed, at least 
a little bit, in good faith, recognizing if at some point as we are 
moving along that confidence is not there, you can derail it at any 
time. You can start the procedure that we have been in for the last 9 
or 10 days. That seems to me the right thing to do, and I hope the 
discussion between the two leaders in 10 minutes will yield us an 
agreement to move forward.
  The Kyl-Cornyn amendment has been pending for 10 days. We have on 
your side Senator Dorgan who feels strongly about his amendment, and so 
does the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson. Those are issues we could 
work through and then see the end of the tunnel. We all know what 
happens. I think we are down to something like 20 amendments on our 
side, and it would probably be less than that. But there are only so 
many major issues associated with this bill.

  I thank the Senator from Illinois for his cooperation and his efforts 
to bring this process forward. I think any objective observer would 
argue that it is time we move forward with the process. As the Senator 
from Illinois said, it is almost too late.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may echo the comments of the 
Senator from Arizona, had we followed a normal procedure in the Senate 
over the last week or 10 days, we would have probably had way more 
votes than Senators on this side of the aisle are requesting. A modest 
number of amendments, as Senator McCain indicated, roughly 20 
amendments, is an incredibly small number of amendments when you 
consider the magnitude of the bill that is before us and the length of 
time that it has been before us. We could have been to the end of the 
process if we had had the kind of procedure that is typically followed 
in this body. I am hoping that we can get to that point. I am 
optimistic that the meeting between the two leaders may produce an 
agreement to get started. We have a group of amendments that are the 
logical place to start. I hope before the evening is over, we will have 
an opportunity to lock those in and to move forward, as we do on every 
other piece of legislation that we handle in this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have been involved, along with many 
other people, trying to work hard. And if this were an easy problem, we 
would have solved it many years ago. As a nation, in 1986, we offered 
amnesty under Ronald Reagan, and 3 million people have turned into 11 
million people. We can argue rightfully about what is punishment, what 
is amnesty. But what we can't afford is to take broken borders and 
combine them with a broken Senate.
  America needs something to work around here on immigration. The House 
has spoken. I don't agree with their conclusion, but at least they 
spoke. The President is speaking. The Senate is trying to speak. We 
have reached a bipartisan compromise that enjoys support on both sides 
but also enjoys fair criticism. If it begins to be the rule that you 
can't offer an amendment if you oppose a bill, that is probably not a 
good policy for our friends in the minority.
  We want to be able to tell America why we differ with each other and 
in some constructive way vote on what our differences are. Three 
amendments on a bill this important is unfair to our colleagues who 
disagree with what we are trying to do. Some of them are trying to make 
the compromise better. I was in the Judiciary Committee. It has been a 
heck of a place to reside. If I had known going in what it was about, I 
don't know if I would have accepted the job. But I have thoroughly 
enjoyed it in this sense: We have taken very important issues, and we 
talked about them and we voted. We spent days on this bill. We had 
dozens of votes, Senator Sessions. Nobody said you couldn't vote. We 
worked through it, and we came out with a bill that some like and some 
don't. Now we are on the Senate floor.
  Everybody who is not on Judiciary deserves at least a shot to have a 
say about this bill. As much as I like being on the Judiciary 
Committee, I don't

[[Page S3197]]

think we should take over the whole Senate. So what we are trying to do 
is give people on the committee and not on the committee a chance to 
revisit this legislation in some orderly process.
  Here is what we propose. It really is about who to trust, and trust 
is pretty low around here. The country has lots of problems, but we 
have to be able to prove to each other we mean what we say. I hope I 
have proven this. I mean it when I say I am for a comprehensive bill. I 
have taken some votes that are not that popular at home. But I believe 
it is best for the country and the people of South Carolina to 
realistically solve this problem. Senator Isakson has a good amendment. 
Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn, there are a bunch of good amendments 
out there. Some of them I will vote against, but they deserve the right 
to be voted on.
  What do we do in conference? Senator Frist has been a very good 
leader this week. He has taken a majority of his conference in a way 
they really didn't want to go, but they are now understanding it is 
better to get something done than nothing. And to get to the end of the 
tunnel, we are going to have to trust each other a little bit.
  Senator Durbin has been terrific. You have been in every meeting I 
have been in, and I believe in your heart you believe it is good for 
the country to solve this problem. The only way we are going to get 
there from here is to have a little bit of faith. If at the end of the 
day this bill blows up, I don't expect you to accept that result, nor 
will I. But I am willing to give the process an opportunity to prove to 
each other that we can do what we said we can do.
  I think we can deliver a bill with Republicans and Democrats that 
would honor the compromise we reached today, but we can't do it 
shutting out our colleagues. I know if we give this a shot, we will 
make it. But those who want to kill it, you need to be on notice. As 
long as I am in the Senate, we are going to be talking about this kind 
of problem. Every day we talk, people come across our border, and we 
don't know who they are. Some are doing good and some may not. We need 
to fix this problem.
  To my colleague from Illinois, I know where your heart is, and I 
appreciate what you have done. But we need to move forward. America 
needs a better legal system when it comes to immigration. America needs 
secure borders. America needs to treat with dignity 11 million people 
who have committed a wrong but could be of great value to us in the 
future. But more than anything else, America needs a Senate that can 
work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. Obviously, Senator 
Sessions is on the committee and had been speaking prior to this 
interlude with our leaders.
  I have worked 5 years to get a piece of this bill, and I have a piece 
of the bill that is currently before us. At the same time, I have voted 
consistently to allow my colleagues who disagree to have a vote on 
their issues. Senator Sessions and I rarely disagree on issues. On this 
we disagree.
  He is very artful in casting certain provisions of it one way. I 
could argue it the opposite way. I suspect my arguments would sound 
nearly as logical as his. But what is important here is the final 
shaping of a very important piece of legislation.
  Controlling our borders is an absolute must that we have denied 
ourselves for now two decades. Everybody talks about the 1986 act. It 
didn't work. No, it didn't work. It didn't work because we didn't 
realize, at least some didn't, that we were sending a signal out that 
if you could get here and wait your time, some day you might become 
legal. You might become a citizen. We didn't realize that we put a 
megaphone to the world and said: Come one, come all.
  We also had an economy and job-creating environment in which there 
were jobs to be had. We didn't control the border. Again in 1996, a 
decade later, we attempted to tackle it again. Numbers had grown. We 
didn't control the border.
  In 1999, I began to work on the agricultural issue. I worked a 
compromise over a period of 5 years now with a lot of different people. 
But in the heart of what I have done is a very important key: it is 
controlling the border. No matter how we write this legislation, if you 
cannot define the number and control the number, it is for naught. That 
is an absolute fact.
  It isn't by accident that the first few titles of the committee bill 
are all about border control. I wish we would move much faster on 
border control. I wish nationally we could move tomorrow because what 
we have offered will take a few years to implement.
  We have to train more Border Patrol men, 1,500 a year, and go on and 
on with beds of detention and all that. That is important and part of 
the control. We have to find the resources to do it. So all of that has 
to fit together.
  At the same time, Americans are phenomenally frustrated about what we 
are doing and where we are. They know why we need to do something, and 
they know our borders ought to be controlled. Well, I am going to stand 
here and defend the right of my colleagues to offer amendments. I would 
like to think that on the issues I am passionate about, my arguments 
are more persuasive to a majority and I can defeat any amendment that 
might be proposed to change certain provisions. I don't know, but I am 
willing to take that risk because I have to guarantee this process.
  The attitude of shut out and deny has never worked in this Senate. We 
always shape it a little bit, but we never deny it. Yet for a week now 
it has been denied and it will not stand or the bill will fall. That 
would be wrong for the American people not only to see but to 
understand because in it are the ingredients to solve a problem, if we 
have the heart and the will to implement it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I agree with much of what Senator Craig 
said--particularly about the ineffectiveness at the border. Let's be 
real frank and honest about the bill we have today. The reason we are 
in trouble today, the reason we are not going to be able to pass this 
legislation is that the bill is a failure. It is a colossal failure. It 
is a dead horse. It has been lying out in the sun, and people have been 
having to look at it, and they are now able to smell it. A few 
amendments and a compromise is not going to revive this. It doesn't do 
what we want it to do. It has a huge surge in immigration.
  The compromise is 95 percent of what was in the bill we just rejected 
this morning by a 60-vote margin--95 percent of it. And the others were 
supposed to make some big difference, but part of the changes in the 
bill increase the number of people who would come into the country, and 
there is not any restraint on the legislation. So the underlying bill 
that came out of committee was bad from the beginning.
  Let me tell you what happened. We debated the bill. We spent 5 days 
in markup, and 4 of those days basically were on border control issues. 
We debated individual words. Then, all of a sudden, on the last day, 
when the majority leader said we had to have the bill out, about noon 
we got around to the amnesty for the 11 million people and what we were 
going to do about future immigration policies. And without any 
amendments--maybe no more than one or two--they were adopted in toto, 
without any real discussion, no expert testimony, no full understanding 
of the comprehensiveness of it. We just rushed it through. We passed 
this bill last Monday at about 6 or 7 o'clock at night. It hit the 
floor on Tuesday or Wednesday. The bill was not even printed until 
Wednesday night. We were devoting Wednesday all day to the bill, and it 
had not even been printed.
  I ask my colleagues this: Should you not know how much the bill 
costs? Is anybody here prepared to stand up and say what this bill 
would cost, the compromise bill, if we pass it? How much will it cost? 
Does anybody know?
  I made inquiry today and got back a letter from CBO that said it is 
clearly in violation of the Budget Act. Now, they said that was just a 
part of the cost; it was much more than that. They were still trying to 
run the numbers.
  So within minutes, I got this e-mail from the Congressional Budget 
Office. It has a score on it. It says that CBO and Joint Tax estimate 
that direct spending outlays under this bill would total about $8 
billion for the first 5

[[Page S3198]]

years. That is clearly in violation of the Budget Act.
  What about revenues? Joint Tax and CBO--our two agencies we depend on 
to tell us what the cost and impact of the legislation will be--
estimate that the legislation would result in an on-budget revenue loss 
of $5 billion from 2007 to 2011 and $2 billion over the 2007-to-2016 
period, largely because of lower tax payments by businesses.
  Here is discretionary spending. Assuming the appropriation of a 
necessary sum, CBO estimates that outlays for those purposes would 
total at least $16 billion from 2007 to 2011 and more than $30 billion 
over 2007 to 2016. And they are in a governmental mandate. The bill 
would impose mandates on State and local governments with costs that 
would exceed the threshold established by the Unfunded Mandates Act and 
at least 1 of the first 5 years after they take effect, totaling $29 
billion over 5 years.
  Well, why am I saying that? First of all, that is a lot of money. We 
have Social Security in trouble, Medicaid in trouble, and we are going 
to add $29 billion more to our costs?
  What is really troubling is that it is symptomatic of the lack of 
thought and serious evaluation that went into writing this bill to 
begin with. It is not a good piece of legislation. It has good 
intentions. It desires to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as I have 
studied it, having been on the Judiciary Committee, I have come to 
believe it cannot be amended. And we are going to have three amendments 
that are going to somehow fix this bill? It fundamentally needs to be 
reviewed. I really think so.
  I will repeat that I am optimistic about our ability to make this 
work. I am optimistic that, with just a commitment of will and some 
resources, we can create secure borders and increase the number of 
people who come into our country legally. We can deal humanely and 
fairly with the 11 million to 12 million--or maybe even 20 million--
illegals who are here. We don't have to give them every single benefit 
we give to those who follow the law, but we can allow most to stay and 
work and live here, if that is what they have been doing and if that is 
possible. We can work out all those things. We can deal with those 
issues in an effective way. But this legislation doesn't do it, and it 
is too late to fix it.
  We need to have some real hearings, get the best minds in America to 
tell us about this problem, and work out legislation that is not 
amnesty, that doesn't cost $27 billion, that creates a lawful system on 
our borders so people can enter and exit easily with biometric 
identifiers if they are lawful and those who try to come in unlawfully 
get apprehended. That can be done. This bill doesn't do it. The 
compromise legislation doesn't do it. It needs to be voted down.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, we have been in a stalemate over the 
issue of amendments for several days now on what is an issue which, as 
the Senator from Alabama so eloquently said, is very important to all 
Americans. It is a very important issue to those who support the bill 
and to those who might oppose the bill. It is an issue where the lives 
of many people in America are hanging on its outcome.
  The President has spoken in the last 24 hours about the need for the 
Senate, with a seriousness of purpose, to move forward to try to arrive 
at a reasonable resolution of this issue. The fact is that, as we have 
over now several days endured, I am not so familiar with every nuance 
of Senate procedure so as to fully understand all that might be and 
could be done. But there is also a benefit to that, which is that I am 
so accustomed to what the rest of America thinks and hears and, 
frankly, have a view that I think is also fresh, which is to say: How 
do you explain to anyone in America that on something as fundamentally 
important as the immigration laws of this country, on a system that 
admittedly, while we cannot agree on much, we have to agree is a broken 
system, that today is not working, not serving America's need for 
security of the border, that is not serving America's need to know who 
these 12 million people are and why they are here, that today is a 
system that compounds and permits illegal behavior by those who cross 
the border illegally and those who employ them and benefit by their 
labor.
  There is a tacit understanding that we have an illegal system and we 
are fine with that. In the midst of that need and in the midst of this 
overwhelming problem we have in our country, the Senate has a 
responsibility to do something about it.
  So how do we explain to the people of America that 100 Senators, led 
by their leaders, have been hung up over the fact that they cannot 
agree on how many amendments they are going to have to this bill? It is 
that simple. We just cannot agree on the number of amendments that will 
be considered on the bill. Some would say it is too fragile a 
compromise. If it is too fragile to not have the sufficient votes to 
defeat amendments to the bill, why, then, it would not pass anyway. 
That is an indication of a lack of purpose.
  Some would say: It is too broken down and cannot be fixed. Let's give 
it a try. I have never heard of a bill which I participated in in my 
short career in the Senate that came to the floor and there was not an 
up-or-down vote--well, sometimes they are done by unanimous consent. 
But on monumental, controversial legislation such as this, there are 
always going to be amendments. And I think about how am I going to 
explain to the people who are looking to me for leadership, telling me 
to get something done on this problem--and on both sides, people are 
demanding that the border be secure, and other people are asking that 
their status be resolved so they can move on to have a piece of the 
American dream--and say to both of them that the Senate has failed you 
and did not act; we could not act for the simple reason that we could 
not agree on the number of amendments. We agreed on the underlying 
idea--a majority of Senators, I believe, or perhaps a significant 
majority agreed on how we might perhaps make a contribution toward 
solving this problem with what now has been reached as a compromise. 
And we announced it with great fanfare. Then we get to the issue of how 
many amendments.
  The bottom line is that this issue is too important--too many people 
are depending on it and the security of our Nation depends upon it--for 
us to fail this test of leadership. If we fail to act on this bill, as 
I seriously fear we will because of the reason that some would prefer 
to have the politics of this issue over the policy we could create by 
acting upon this issue, whatever the will of the Senate may be on it, 
we will have seriously failed the American people and failed the test 
of leadership. The President has encouraged us, told us, urged us to 
move forward and to act on this very important issue. We simply are 
dilly-dallying and failing to act on something that is fundamentally 
important to the people of this country.
  So I say that if this issue fails to be acted upon, there will be 
people looking for places to hide and fingers to point as to who is to 
blame. I would blame all 100 of us for not getting it done. Those who 
agree with it can vote for it, and those who disagree with it can vote 
against. Those who have legitimate amendments should be able to offer 
them and be able to have a vote on them up or down.
  Obviously, we have to limit the number of amendments. So we are back 
to the decision of how many amendments. You would think that grown 
people could decide how many amendments to have on a bill of this 
significance and of this importance to the Nation. If we don't agree on 
the question of how many amendments, I look forward to hearing 
suggestions on how we explain to the American people why we failed to 
act.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to speak to an amendment 
designed to clarify existing immigration law and ease the burden on 
families sent abroad in service to the United States.
  Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, there is normally a 3-year 
residence requirement for spouses of U.S. citizens to be naturalized. 
Section 319 (B)(3) waives that requirement for applicants whose citizen 
spouses are ordered abroad by our Government to keep families intact 
while certain members do their duty to our country, wherever in the 
world that may require them to go. The same law rightly places value on 
cohabitation between

[[Page S3199]]

spouses in requiring that applicants spend no more than 45 days away 
from their citizen spouse. The waiver provided under existing law is 
clearly intended to prevent our Government from splitting up families 
whose members are in the service of this country for the mere purpose 
of satisfying shortsighted antifamily regulations. Yet that is exactly 
what has occurred as a result of the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services' overly narrow interpretation of this law.
  I wish to briefly tell you a story about two constituents of mine, a 
husband and wife from New Orleans, who were subjected to this 
particular fate. Brett Schexnider has served as an Active-Duty officer 
in the Armed Forces for more than 20 years, and holds the rank of 
commander in the U.S. Navy. Commander Schexnider married his wife 
Gisele in March of 1999. When the Navy ordered Commander Schexnider to 
leave New Orleans for a foreign post over 2 years later, Gisele, who is 
originally from France, understandingly and dutifully accompanied her 
husband on his tour of duty. After 14 months, the Navy sent Commander 
Schexnider back home, and his wife returned with him. Four months 
later, she applied for naturalization. Her application was denied as a 
result of her having joined her husband abroad, which caused a break in 
the 3 years of continuous residence normally required. Relying neither 
on explicit regulation nor statute, USCIS determined that she was no 
longer entitled to a waiver of the 3-year requirement because her 
husband had returned to the United States by the time she filed her 
application. After 6 years of marriage, Gisele was told that she would 
have to wait another 3 years before her application could be approved. 
I submit to my colleagues that this unwritten policy and absurd 
determination is not only bureaucratically senseless but also a 
shameful offense to the institution of marriage.
  Again, this amendment does not seek to do anything more than clarify 
existing law so that it may achieve its original purpose. The provision 
in Federal regulations requiring that duty abroad last at least 1 year 
would remain intact, as would the requirement that an applicant be 
present in the United States at the time of naturalization. My 
amendment would simply prevent applicants from failing residence 
requirements if they choose to follow their spouse to a Government-
ordered post.
  Our military families and the families of this Nation's public 
servants who are sent abroad do not deserve to be punished for their 
service. The laws of this Government and the agencies that execute them 
must not be allowed to separate families whose members stand up to 
answer the call of duty, and I would hope that all my colleagues could 
join me in protecting our Nation's families from this disgraceful 
practice.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Amendment be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN ALIEN SPOUSES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     determining eligibility for naturalization under section 319 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to an 
     alien spouse who is married to a citizen spouse who was 
     stationed abroad on orders from the United States Government 
     for a period of not less than 1 year and reassigned to the 
     United States thereafter, the following rules shall apply:
       (1) The citizen spouse shall be treated as regularly 
     scheduled abroad without regard to whether the citizen spouse 
     is reassigned to duty in the United States.
       (2) Any period of time during which the alien spouse is 
     living abroad with his or her citizen spouse shall be treated 
     as residency within the United States for purposes of meeting 
     the residency requirements under section 319 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, even if the citizen spouse 
     is reassigned to duty in the United States at the time the 
     alien spouse files an application for naturalization.

  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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________