[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 50 (Tuesday, May 2, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3852-S3853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S3852]]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday marked another day of peaceful,
dignified rallies all over the country in support of comprehensive
immigration reform. In fact, in Los Angeles, at the direction and
suggestion of Cardinal Mahoney, many people stayed at work and at
school. At his request, people met later in the day. Hundreds of
thousands of people met at 5:30 p.m. in the day to talk about why it is
important that we have peaceful, very powerful demonstrations. The
reason: They underscore the need for Congress to pass a strong,
comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Last Friday, I had the privilege of discussing this subject with
Cardinal Mahoney, the archbishop of Los Angeles, and Cardinal
McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington. For me, it was a very moving
meeting. I appreciated the chance to visit with these two kind,
thoughtful, and spiritual men. Both of them have been tremendous
leaders on the issue of immigration. We all agreed that it is of utmost
importance for Congress to move forward with the immigration reform
bill this year as soon as possible.
Last week, I also had the opportunity to meet with a number of other
Senators at the White House with President Bush. As I said after that
meeting, I am not in the habit of patting the President on the back,
but he deserved credit--and I said so publicly--for calling us together
and for hosting a good bipartisan meeting. My hope is that this will
continue.
I made clear to the President that Senators on this side of the aisle
are committed to comprehensive immigration reform. I pledged to work
with the President and the majority leader, as I have in the past, in a
bipartisan way on this very important issue.
Every day we fail to fix the immigration system, it gets worse. I
have said many times our current immigration system is broken, and it
is. We supposedly fixed it 20 years ago, and in the process we have 11
million or 12 million illegal immigrants. We didn't do a good job of
fixing it. We must do better. We must have a cohesive, coordinated
effort to strengthen border security, create legal mechanisms for
American companies to hire essential temporary employees, and encourage
the 11 million or 12 million undocumented immigrants in our country to
come out of the shadows and be part of America. We need to know who
these people are and make sure they are productive, law-abiding,
taxpaying members of the community. We must also have proper employer
sanction enforcement so that employers do not hire undocumented aliens
with impunity. That is so important.
But the question remains: How will we move forward in the Senate?
Prior to the Easter recess, I tried, we tried to get agreement on the
number of amendments. We couldn't. The best we could get is there were
at least 2 dozen. I tried to get an agreement on conference and
couldn't do that.
Why is conference important? As we learned even in high school, when
the Senate passes a bill and the House passes a bill on the same
subject, the two bodies must meet and work out their differences. In
the past, those have been public meetings where the two sides got
together and worked out their differences. In recent years, with this
Republican-dominated Congress and the President in the White House,
conference committees have not been held. The Republican members of a
particular committee meet in private with the leadership and come back
with whatever they want, ignoring the minority. So that is why it is
important we have some agreement on conference.
Over the Easter recess, I sent a letter to the distinguished majority
leader, my counterpart, urging him to bring the immigration bill back
before the full Senate at the earliest possible time. I expressed my
view that the Senate should resume the immigration debate immediately
after we completed work on the emergency supplemental appropriations
bill. That bill is going to be completed this week, as we heard from
the majority leader.
I continue to believe that such a schedule makes a lot of sense. Few
other issues are as important and no other is as ripe for Senate debate
as this issue. Surely, we can pass comprehensive immigration
legislation before the Memorial Day recess. But to accomplish that
goal, the majority leader and I need to reach an agreement on the
process for completing debate.
There are two basic elements to such an agreement: the number of
amendments and an understanding about how the bill will be handled in
conference with the House.
Opponents of reform and fairness have filed hundreds of amendments--
it is estimated about 500 amendments--to weaken or kill this
comprehensive immigration legislation. We Democrats are prepared to
debate and vote on some of these amendments, but there must be a finite
number of amendments. Before we start the debate, we must know how many
amendments there are.
I have made clear to the majority leader that I am flexible on that
number. As I said previously, prior to Easter, I suggested three
amendments per side. As I indicated earlier, I was told there were at
least 2 dozen. We were unable to reach agreement before the recess.
So today I suggest we vote on 10 amendments per side. That is 20. We
can have second-degree amendments and, as we have done in recent
history, we can have side by sides. That immediately balloons up to 40,
and possibly, with side by sides for each of those, 80. I don't think
there is any chance that would happen, but it is certainly possible if
someone wanted to be mischievous. I am willing to start with that
number, 10 amendments per side.
I think this is the right way to do it, but this bill has not had the
blessing of the majority in moving forward. This bill is going to take
some time to finish. It is not going to be finished in a couple days. I
hope we can finish it in a couple weeks, but there is no guarantee of
that. But we are willing to work through this.
As important as the number of amendments is what happens in
conference, no question about that. With the Republicans in the House
having passed a bill making all undocumented immigrants felons--
felons--with the House majority leader publicly dismissing the Senate's
bill, and with the House Judiciary Committee chairman serving as
sponsor of the felon provision in the House legislation--listen to what
Chairman Sensenbrenner said on the House floor. Basically, he said the
White House originally proposed the idea to criminalize the
undocumented status of these people. This is from Chairman
Sensenbrenner:
At the administration's request, the base bill makes
unlawful presence a crime, such as unlawful entry already is.
This change makes sense. Aliens who have disregarded our laws
by overstaying their visas to remain in the United States
illegally should be just as culpable as aliens who have
broken our laws to enter and remain here illegally.
Again, at the administration's request, says Chairman Sensenbrenner.
A few days ago, on April 16, a White House source confirmed this
statement in the L.A. Times as being accurate.
Does everyone understand why I am a little concerned, a little
suspicious? We have the House passing a bill declaring these immigrants
as felons, and we are told by the chairman of the House committee that
the idea came from the White House, and we have the majority leader in
the House saying he doesn't like our bill. So we must have some
agreement, and we need it soon. Time is a-wastin', for lack of a better
description. It is imperative we have a firm agreement on whom the
conferees will be, whom the participants will be, before we move the
bill forward. As I have said in the past, membership would consist of
Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee--10
Republicans, 8 Democrats--and the Republicans would have a 2-vote
majority. However, if the distinguished majority leader has an
alternative proposal that will protect the completion of a fair
conference, I will listen, as will Senator Leahy, the ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee.
We cannot allow the House to hijack this bill and destroy the Senate
Judiciary Committee's bipartisan work. Under these unusual
circumstances, conference protections are indispensable. There are many
kinds of possible conference protections. I have indicated the most
straightforward way is to appoint the members of the Judiciary
Committee as conferees. The concept of sending a full committee to
[[Page S3853]]
conference is hardly unprecedented. In fact, it happens all the time.
The Presiding Officer here for years was chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, and I met with him when he was chairman and I ranking member
on many occasions when we had the full Appropriations Committee there.
It has happened with Armed Services. They typically send their entire
membership to conference. The Judiciary Committee has done the same on
prior occasions.
One way or another, it is crucial that this bill be the product of
bipartisan consensus. This is how people feel around the country, not
only Members of this Senate. Not many feet from here, on Friday, I was
at a press conference in which Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal Mahony
participated. Cardinal Mahony said to everyone within the sound of his
voice: There must be protections in conference.
I hope we can work together toward adequate assurances that the
Senate's delicate compromise, bipartisan compromise, will not be
filibustered by amendment or decided or blown apart in the dark of
night without a real congressional conference.
Immigration reform is vital to America's national security. We have
an obligation to act. I look forward to the Senate resuming this
important debate as soon as possible and I would hope the minute we
finish this supplemental appropriations bill. I look forward to the
distinguished majority leader and I making a proposal to the body so
that we can move forward on this issue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________