[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.

                          ____________________