[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 64 (Monday, May 22, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4849-S4860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2611, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2611) to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.
Pending:
Ensign/Graham modified amendment No. 4076, to authorize the
use of the National Guard to secure the southern border of
the United States.
Chambliss/Isakson amendment No. 4009, to modify the wage
requirements for employers seeking to hire H-2A and blue card
agricultural workers.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the time is now reserved
for the Senator from New Mexico to speak on the pending matter; is that
correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about border
security and the immigration reform bill. I have some very strong views
on this issue because my home State shares its southern border with
Mexico. Every day I hear stories about the problems of lax border
security, a cause for concern among my constituents. They tell me
directly the problems this causes. I am convinced we must do more to
secure our borders than we have been doing. However, I am very pleased
we are making headway. I hope, in the not too distant future, the
American people will see the fruits of that headway. I hope I can
explain in my time allotted how we are going to do more and what we are
doing.
Border security and immigration enforcement should be top priorities
in our debate this week. Whether they are top priorities will influence
my vote on any border and immigration package considered in the Senate.
The first step to secure our border is more border security funding.
I believe Senator Judd Gregg, as chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, understands this. Sometimes it has
been difficult to let the American people hear what is going on, what
he is doing in his subcommittee, what the Senate is doing when it
follows his lead, and what happens when we finish work with the House
on the bills that start out in his committee.
He helped us provide $635 million for border security in fiscal year
2005 in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. With his
efforts, we provided more than $9 billion for border security and
immigration enforcement in the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security
appropriations bill. He worked to include $1.9 billion for border
security in the Senate fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental
appropriations bill. Add that up, and one can understand that Congress
is finally responding to the gigantic needs of making our international
borders secure.
The fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental funding I have alluded to
includes such items as $100 million for sensors and surveillance
technology; $120 million for new Border Patrol stations, checkpoints,
and vehicle barriers; $80 million for Border Patrol vehicles; and $790
million for border security helicopters and other air assets. Believe
it or not, until recently, while we have talked a great deal about the
Border Patrol and what they must do, they had helicopters from the
Vietnam era. We have finally decided to buy them a new fleet of
helicopters. After all these years of talking, we are finally doing
something. Also, we included $50 million for an upgraded CBP
communications system.
Many Americans must be wondering, what have we been doing all these
years in all these appropriations bills when we have talked so much?
The truth is, we have done little. But we are doing more now.
Second, we need more border security provisions as part of border
security and immigration reform legislation. Many security provisions
in the current border and immigration bill are good, but they are not
enough. I have filed three amendments to the bill which I will discuss
shortly. I understand and think once Senators have heard these
amendments and the managers have had a chance to review them, they may
be accepted.
Lastly, we should try to address what to do with the millions of
undocumented workers in America today. In March, I joined with a
bipartisan group of Senators to support what has been called the Hagel-
Martinez compromise. I supported the compromise in hopes that it would
allow a border security and immigration bill to move forward. I also
supported it because, as I understand the bill, anyone who came to the
United States illegally after January 7 of 2004 receives no special
treatment; that is, those hundreds of thousands of people who have been
running to the border or who have been taken to the border, who have
purchased their way to the border in the last few months, will receive
no special treatment. It is my understanding these individuals--that
is, post-January 7, 2004 illegal entrants--would be subject to removal
and deportation under existing immigration laws. The record needs to
clearly reflect that.
That means one group of people that Americans are wondering about
will not receive any special privileges under this bill. They are sort
of the Johnny-come-latelies who have run to the border thinking if they
can get here quick enough they will be included in our immigration
reform efforts. But it is my understanding that these individuals would
be subject to removal and deportation under existing immigration law. I
repeat that because I believe a number of Senators, on this side of the
aisle at least, are indicating their support for this bill because they
believe that is in the bill.
As the most senior Senator representing a southwest border State, I
would like to now discuss the amendments I have filed, which I believe
make eminent sense and should be accepted by the Senate.
The first is an amendment regarding Mexican cooperation. This
amendment will require the Secretary of State to cooperate with Mexico
to improve border security and to reduce border crime. The amendment is
the result of a lot of hard work and is cosponsored by the
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, who is very familiar
with the border problems and the problems with Mexico.
I would like to read that amendment because a reading of it does more
than
[[Page S4850]]
I could do by trying to summarize it. This amendment has as its
purpose:
To improve coordination between the United States and
Mexico regarding border security, criminal activity, circular
migration, and for other purposes.
(a) Cooperation Regarding Border Security.--The Secretary
of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security and representatives of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies that are involved in border security and
immigration enforcement efforts, shall work with the
appropriate officials from the Government of Mexico to
improve coordination between the United States and Mexico
regarding--
(1) improved border security along the international border
between the United States and Mexico;
(2) the reduction of human trafficking and smuggling
between the United States and Mexico;
(3) the reduction of drug traffic and smuggling between the
United States and Mexico;
(4) the reduction of gang membership in the United States
and Mexico;
(5) the reduction of violence against women in the United
States and Mexico; and
(6) the reduction of other violence and criminal activity.
Next:
(b) Cooperation Regarding Education On Immigration Laws.--
The Secretary of State, in cooperation with other appropriate
Federal officials, shall work with the appropriate officials
from the Government of Mexico to carry out activities to
educate citizens and nationals of Mexico regarding
eligibility for status as a non-immigrant under United
States' law to ensure that the citizens and nationals are not
exploited while working in the United States.
(c) Cooperation Regarding Circular Migration.--The
Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Labor and other appropriate Federal officials, shall work
with the appropriate officials from the Government of Mexico
to improve coordination between the United States and Mexico
to encourage circular migration, including assisting in the
development of economic opportunities and providing job
training for citizens and nationals in Mexico.
(d) Annual Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a report on the
actions taken by the United States and Mexico under this
section.
I believe this amendment is absolutely necessary, and I am very
pleased Senator Dodd has joined me in supporting the amendment. I hope
this will become part of this bill. My amendment will require an annual
report which I think will push the leaders of Mexico to do the kinds of
things that Americans expect these two countries to do. If we do not
work together, we will have chaos. But with an agreement to work
together on these issues, annually the people of both countries should
know what is going on in terms of cooperation in the areas I have just
spoken to.
Now, sources estimate that as much as 85 percent of apprehended
illegal immigrants are from Mexico. So we must work with Mexico to
address the security of our southern border and the number of illegal
entries from Mexico.
My amendment calls on the Secretary of State to work with Mexico to
improve border security; reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking,
violence against women, and to inform Mexican nationals of the benefits
of U.S. immigration. I have just read the amendment in its entirety on
each of these subjects.
Mexico must do its part in this initiative.
On Sunday, there was an Associated Press article titled ``Mexico
Works to Bar Non-Natives from Jobs.'' That article says--and I quote--
Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant
unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican
migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies
``xenophobic,'' Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone
born outside its territory.
Mexico expects us to have much more humane, much more liberal, and
much more constructive immigration policies in our Nation than it is
willing to implement within its own borders. Can you imagine the uproar
if we were to try to make our immigration policies anything like the
policies of Mexico?
In addition to changing its own immigration policies, Mexico has some
other responsibilities, in my view. How many of its citizens, seeking
economic sustenance, does Mexico expect us to take before it reforms
its own economic policies?
Estimates released over the weekend reveal that about 10 percent of
the Mexican workforce now works not in its homeland but in the United
States, and that 10 percent provides about 15 percent of the Mexican
national income.
We have an unusual, perhaps unique, situation along the border
between the United States and Mexico. On no other border of this length
in the world does such a disparity exist between the economic prowess
and programs of the two nations sharing such a border.
Here is America, the leading economy in the world, bordered for
almost 2,000 miles by a nation that persists in economic policies that
have failed to provide sufficient jobs or salaries for much of its
people. No similar situation exists anywhere on the globe. So we have a
unique challenge that is attendant to this unique situation.
That challenge needs to be met not just by the United States, but by
Mexico, too. They must join us in an effort to solve this challenge.
Economic reform, greater emphasis on the private economy, and
modernizing more of its facilities remain great challenges that Mexico
must face.
We are forced to tighten our borders not because we are a mean
nation, but because the economy to the south of us is driving millions
to our country's economy. I believe my amendment will provide for more
cooperation between the United States and Mexico. As a result, I
believe our border could be more secure.
I have another amendment that has to do with Federal judges. I note
the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, is on the
Senate floor, and her state is impacted by this amendment. It has to do
with the inadequate number of Federal judges that is going to result
when this new law is put into effect. The U.S. district courts in the
southwest are overly burdened with immigration caseloads. We must have
additional judges, as recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference.
Let me explain. While immigration cases typically go before
immigration judges, repeat offenders can be charged with felonies and
tried in Federal district court. As a result, four of our district
courts have immigration caseloads that total more than 50 percent of
their total criminal filings.
The fiscal year 2004 immigration caseload for the Southern District
of Texas totaled 3,668 filings. This is more than 65 percent of the
district's 5,599 criminal filings.
The District Court for Arizona had 2,404 immigration filings, more
than 59 percent of the district's 4,007 criminal filings.
The Southern District of California had 2,206 immigration filings.
That is more than 64 percent of its total 3,400 criminal filings.
The district court for my home State of New Mexico had 1,502
immigration filings. That is more than 60 percent of its total of 2,497
criminal filings.
I am glad we are improving border security and interior enforcement
with this legislation. But, obviously, we must also provide the
adequate machinery to go along with that, and that means enough Federal
judges to handle the caseload that will be generated.
In short, if we put more Border Patrol agents and immigration
personnel on the southwestern border, we need to provide more resources
to the other Federal agencies that also deal with immigration.
The immigration bill recognizes this to some degree by calling for
more DHS and DOJ attorneys, public defenders, and immigration judges.
But we must add new district judges necessary to hear the cases of
repeat immigration law violators. Failure to do that means we will
create even more of an unworkable situation that already involves mass
arraignments and sentencings.
As we work on this bill to provide more resources to the Departments
of Homeland Security and Justice, we must also address related needs,
so I am proud to offer this amendment with Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and
Hutchison.
I also address a related need for more deputy marshals in an
amendment. We have a dramatic shortage of deputy marshals to handle the
increased caseload that will be associated with repeat immigration law
violators. My third amendment, offered with Senators Bingaman, Kyl,
Cornyn, and Hutchison, awaits consideration. It adds 50 new deputy
marshals each year for 5 years.
Lastly, I would just comment on a very important part of the bill,
the land port-of-entry improvements sections. Those provisions are
based on
[[Page S4851]]
legislation I authored in the 108th Congress with Senator Dorgan and
which 13 other border state Senators cosponsored.
These provisions address the needs of our land ports of entry.
I am grateful that the managers of the bill have adopted that
legislation as part of their bill. These sections are critical because
neither American border has undergone a comprehensive infrastructure
overhaul since Senator DeConcini, a Senator from Arizona, and I put
forth an effort to modernize the southwest border 20 years ago. We have
done nothing comprehensive since 1986 on either the north or south
international border. A great deal has changed since then, including
the passage of legislation to improve security of our airports and
seaports, following September 11, 2001.
I appreciate Chairman Specter including my legislation to identify
port-of-entry infrastructure and technology improvement projects,
prioritize and implement these projects based on need, require a plan
to assess the vulnerabilities of each of the ports of entry located on
the northern and southern borders of our great Nation, implement a
technology demonstration program to evaluate new ports of entry
technologies, and provide training necessary for personnel who must
implement these new technologies. I believe these provisions are
essential for border security. I am glad and appreciative that they are
in the bill.
Mr. President, we must secure our international borders. I believe
with Chairman Gregg's leadership on the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee and strong border security provisions in
this bill, we can do just that.
I thank the Chair for the time granted me to express my views and to
the Senators who have listened. Certainly, I hope what I have said will
have an impact to some extent on this bill and that the amendments that
have not yet been adopted, of which I have spoken, will, before we come
to final closure, become part of this great effort to secure our
borders, provide for an orderly transition for those who have come to
our country illegally, and create orderly rules for future guest
workers. This is important so the relationships between America and
other countries can move forward, and so our country, which is going to
need immigrants in the future, can look forward to that in an orderly
manner based on a border that is secure and an agreement between the
U.S. and Mexico that is going to be carried out and rendered operative.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 4087
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
New Mexico for his thoughtful comments on the bill. I have the
privilege of serving as a member of the Energy Committee, of which he
is chairman. It has been a pleasure for me to serve under his
chairmanship. I thank him for those comments.
I come to the floor to discuss an amendment, SA 4087, which I filed
this morning. It is entitled ``To modify the Conditions Under Which
Aliens Who Are Unlawfully Present in the United States Are Granted
Legal Status.'' I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as
a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for
the amendment from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and over 115
groups and organizations from around the country be printed in the
Record.
There, being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congress of the
United States,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2006.
Dear Senator: We write to express our strong support of the
Feinstein amendment to S. 2611 and ask you to vote for it
when considered on the Senate floor.
The Feinstein ``orange card'' amendment would simplify the
implementation of the legalization program considerably,
creating a uniform and tough path to permanency for all hard-
working undocumented immigrants living in the United States--
without providing them an automatic pardon or amnesty.
To qualify, undocumented individuals would be required to
have been physically present in the United States and working
by January 1, 2006. They would have to pay a $2000 fine and
back taxes, learn English and American civics, and pass
extensive criminal and security background check. After
working for at least 6 years, orange card holders could apply
for legal permanent residence, but only after all current
applicants for a green card are adjudicated.
S. 2611, as currently drafted, creates a complicated,
three-tiered process that could undermine the success of the
legalization program. We fear that without amendment, the
legalization program will be costly and difficult to
administer, prone to widespread fraud and inherently unfair
to those that it would, perhaps even inadvertently, exclude.
It is our position that for a comprehensive approach to
work, immigration reform must be tough and enforceable and
bring as many undocumented individuals out of the shadows as
possible. If reform fails to do this, we will be wasting an
important and historic opportunity to get at the root of the
problem with our immigration policy. Rather than fixing our
broken system once and for all, S. 2611 could postpone our
ability to get control of migration flows into our country
and secure our homeland.
The Feinstein amendment would strengthen the effectiveness
and fairness of S. 2611, and is, therefore, in the best
interests of all Americans. We urge you to vote yes on the
Feinstein amendment.
Sincerely,
Grace Flores Napolitano,
Chair, Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).
Luis V. Gutierrez,
Chair, CHC Immigration Task Force.
____
Coalition for Comprehensive
Immigration Reform.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the undersigned organizations,
we are writing to express our strong support for the
Feinstein ``Orange Card'' amendment which replaces the three-
tiered treatment of undocumented immigrants in S. 2611 with
one simple process that applies to undocumented immigrants
who lived in the U.S. on January 1, 2006 and meet other
strict requirements including paying taxes, learning English,
passing criminal and security background checks, and paying a
$2000 fine.
Under the Feinstein amendment Orange Card holders may
become lawful permanent residents when all current applicants
for green cards have been received from them (estimated to be
6 years), or 8 years after the bill becomes law, whichever is
earlier. This means that they are essentially ``in line''
behind those who are currently awaiting visas through our
legal immigration system. Orange Card holders must check in
each year with the government and show that they continue to
meet all of the requirements listed above.
There are numerous other important advantages of the
Feinstein Orange Card amendment including: one simple process
to legalize qualifying undocumented immigrants who entered
the U.S. before January 1, 2006; equal treatment of all
family members; and ease of administration with less
potential for fraud. Moreover, the amendment increases the
effectiveness of comprehensive immigration reform by
maximizing the extent to which undocumented immigrants
currently in the United States can access a path to U.S.
citizenship.
We are deeply concerned that S. 2611 will exclude too many
immigrants who are hard working, law abiding, and making
important contributions to this country. We believe the best
way to reform the law is to maximize the number of immigrants
who legalize and to create a process that works. We urge you
to recognize the many contributions that these immigrants
make to our country and provide a path to citizenship which
is consistent with the spirit of S. 2611 in that immigrants
would have to meet the same requirements for working paying
taxes, learning English, and waiting in line behind others
but without creating unnecessary and cumbersome parallel
processes which will be difficult to administer and will
leave too many behind.
We strongly support the Feinstein Orange Card amendment and
urge you to support it.
Sincerely,
ACORN; Aceramiento Hispano de Carolina del Sur; The
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; American Friends
Service Committee, Miami; Asian American Justice Center;
Asian Americans for Equality; Association of Mexicans in
North Carolina (AMEXCAN); CASA of Maryland, Inc.; Center for
Community Change; The Center for Justice, Peace and the
Environment; Center for Social Advocacy; Central American
Resource Center/CARECEN-L.A.; Centro Campesino Inc.;
Coalition for Asian American Children and Families (CACF);
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
(CHIRLA); Coalition for New South Carolinians; Community
Wellness Partnership of Pomona; Dignity Through Dialogue and
Education; Eastern Pennsylvania Conference of the United
Methodist Church; El Centro Hispanoamericano; El Centro,
Inc.; Empire Justice Center; En Camino, Diocese of Toledo;
FIRM (Fair Immigration Reform Movement); Family & Children's
Service; Fanm Ayisyen Nan Miyami/Haitian Women of Miami,
Inc.; The Farmworker Association of Florida Inc.; Farmworkers
Association of Florida; Florida Immigrant Coalition;
[[Page S4852]]
Fuerza Latina; Fundacion Salvadorena de la Florida; Georgia
Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO); Guatemalan
Unity Information Agency; Haitian Women of Miami; HIAS and
Council Migration Service of Philadelphia; Heartland
Alliance; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS); Hispanic
American Association; Hispanic Coalition, Miami; Hispanic
Federation; Hispanic Women's Organization of Arkansas; Holy
Redeemer Lutheran Church, San Jose, CA; ISAIAH, Twin Cities
and St. Cloud Regions, MN; Illinois Coalition for Immigration
and Refugee Rights; Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant
Rights, California; Interfaith Coalition for Worker Justice
of South Central Wisconsin (ICWJ); Intl. Association of
Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers,
Miami; International Immigrants Foundation; International
Institute of Rhode Island; Institute of the Sisters of Mercy
of the Americas; Irish American Unity Conference; Irish
Immigration Pastoral Center, San Francisco; Irish Lobby for
Immigration Reform; Korean American Resource and Cultural
Center, Chicago, IL; Korean Resource Center, Los Angeles, CA;
JUNTOS;
Joseph Law Firm, PC; LULAC; Labor Council for Latin
American Advancement, LCLAA; Latin American Immigrants
Federation; Latin American Integration Center, New York City;
Latino and Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel Valley and
Pomona Valley; Latino Leadership, Inc.; Latinos en Accion de
CCI, a chapter of Iowa Citizens For Community Improvement;
Law Office of Kimberly Salinas; League of Rural Voters;
MALDEF; Make the Road by Walking; Mary's Center for Maternal
and Child Care; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy
Coalition (MIRA); Medical Mission Sisters' Alliance for
Justice; Michigan Organizing Project; Minnesota Immigrant
Freedom Network; The Multi-Cultural Alliance of Prince
George's County Inc.; Nashville Area Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd; National Alliance of Latin American & Caribbean
Communities (NALACC); National Capital Immigration Coalition
(NCIC); National Council of La Raza; National Farm Worker
Ministry (NFWM); National Immigration Forum; National Korean
American Service & Education Consortium, Los Angeles, CA;
Nationalities Service Center; Nebraska Appleseed Center for
Law in the Public Interest; Neighbors Helping Neighbors;
NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; New York
Immigration Coalition; ONE Lowell, Lowell, MA; Pennsylvania
ACORN; People For the American Way (PFAW); Pineros y
Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN); Presbyterian Church
(USA), Washington Office; Project HOPE; Project for Pride in
Living; Rockland Immigration Coalition; Rural Coalition/
Coalicion Rural; Service Employees International Union
(SEIU); SEIU Florida Healthcare Union; SEIU Local 32BJ;
Seattle Irish Immigrant Support Group; Society of Jesus, New
York Province; South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow;
Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC); UN
DIA (United Dubuque Immigrant Alliance); UNITE HERE! U.S.
Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI); Unite for
Dignity for Immigrant Workers Rights, Inc.; United Farm
Workers, Miami; United Food and Commercial Workers; United
Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society;
Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers; We
Count!; Westchester Hispanic Coalition; Westside Community
Action Network Center (Westside CAN Center); The Workmen's
Circle/Arbeter Ring; YKASEC--Empowering the Korean American
Community, New York, NY; Yee & Durkin, LLP.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I make these remarks as a 13\1/2\-year
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Immigration
Subcommittee. I also come from a State which is very large in terms of
immigrants, both legal and illegal, and a State which is a dynamic
economic engine for our country. I strongly believe that any
comprehensive immigration bill must address three issues: a
strengthening of our borders so that they are safe, effective, strong;
a limited guest worker program and an overhaul of the visa system; and
most importantly, I believe, the creation of a pathway to earned
legalization for the large number of people, estimated at between 10
and 12 million, who live today invisibly in our Nation and who have
become a critical part of the American workplace and on whom employers
depend to do work Americans will simply not do.
I respond to our analysis of the Hagel-Martinez amendment, and my
remarks are in two parts. The first part will be to propose an
alternative to Hagel-Martinez. The second part will be a critique on
what I see are substantial flaws in the Hagel-Martinez amendment.
I first thank both Senators Hagel and Martinez. They have done a
great service to the Senate and our country by trying to come up with a
compromise solution to what is a major problem facing our Nation.
Nonetheless, I find significant structural and practical faults and
have tried to correct those with the proposal I have just introduced
and will be speaking on now.
I am introducing what is called an orange card amendment. This
amendment would streamline the process for earned legalization. It
would create a more workable and practical program and dedicate the
necessary dollars to cover its costs of administration. This amendment
builds on the compromises already agreed to under McCain-Kennedy and
Hagel-Martinez, and it incorporates the amendments already adopted on
the Senate floor. But it eliminates what I see as an unworkable three-
tiered program under Hagel-Martinez.
This amendment only deals with earned legalization. It does not
change any of the border security provisions, the guest worker program,
or any other part of this bill. Therefore, this amendment would
essentially eliminate the program created by Hagel-Martinez and replace
it with the orange card program I am now going to explain.
Under this amendment, all undocumented aliens who are in the United
States as of January 1, 2006, would immediately register a preliminary
application with the Department of Homeland Security. At the time of
the registration, they would also submit fingerprints at the U.S.
Customs and Immigration Service's facility so that criminal and
national security background checks could commence immediately. That is
the first step. It would also create a more precise registration system
that would allow the immediate inflow of information into the
Department of Homeland Security to be processed electronically, which
the Hagel-Martinez amendment does not, and which is what we have been
told is essential to ensuring that DHS can handle this new workload. It
would give the Department time to vet the application through a
thorough and orderly process. This would be the first step.
Under the second step, petitioners would submit a full application
for an orange card in person by providing the necessary documents to
demonstrate their work history and their presence in the United States.
Their application would also require that they pass a criminal and
national security background check that would be carried out based on
the information and fingerprints from the preapplication; they
demonstrate an understanding of English and U.S. history and
Government, as required when someone applies for their citizenship;
they have paid their back taxes; and they would pay a $2,000 fine. The
money from this fine would be used to cover the costs of administering
the program. These requirements are the second step of what is required
to earn an orange card. They also comply with previous amendments
passed on the floor of the Senate during this debate.
If the application is approved, each individual would be issued what
I call an orange card. I selected orange because the color had no
connotation I could think of. This card would be encrypted with a
machine-readable electronic identification strip that is unique to that
individual. The card itself would contain biometric identifiers, anti-
counterfeiting security features, and an assigned number that would
place that individual at the end of the current line to apply for a
green card. The number would correspond to the length of time that the
petitioner has been in the United States so that those who have been
here the longest would be the first to follow those currently waiting
to receive a green card. That is the 3.3 million people outside of the
country awaiting a green card. These cards would go in order following
the expunging of that line.
The issuance of an orange card would allow individuals to remain in
the United States legally and work, as well as travel in and out of the
country. It would become their fraud-proof identifier, complete with a
photo and fingerprints. This is the second step to earning
legalization.
The third step is that on an annual basis, each individual who
applies for an orange card would submit to DHS documentation either
electronically or by mail that shows what they have been doing in that
year, the work they have carried out, that they have, in fact, paid
their taxes that year, and
[[Page S4853]]
whether they have been convicted of any crime during that year, either
through court documents or an attestation, and they would pay a $50
processing fee. These three steps, plus the required wait at the back
of the green card line, clearly indicates that this is not an amnesty
program.
The legalization in the orange card must be earned, and it must be
earned over a substantial period of time. It would be available to all
who are here from January of this year.
This language will ensure that there are enough funds to run the
program because there is a $2,000 fine that would be dedicated to
paying for the administration of the program and a $50 annual
processing fee. For example, assuming there are between 10 and 20
million undocumented aliens already in the United States who would have
to pay a $2,000 fine, if 10 million came forward, that alone would
raise $20 billion. So the program would be covered. By including this
language, this amendment protects against creating a new burden on
taxpayers and ensures that the Federal Government has the necessary
money to make the program work.
Another safeguard contained in the amendment is the annual reporting
requirement. By including this process, this amendment will ensure that
individuals who apply to this program remain productive and hard-
working members of their communities. The amendment requires that
individuals must work for at least 6 years before they may adjust their
status. Realistically, from what we know about the number of green card
petitioners legally waiting in other countries for their green card, it
is much more likely that they would have to wait a longer time before
the process is completed. Again, this is not amnesty. It is a clear
path to an earned legalization. These prospective reporting
requirements ensure that only individuals who deserve to adjust their
status and continue to be productive members of their communities may
become legal permanent residents.
In addition, by focusing on prospective requirements, this amendment
streamlines the process and helps avoid the bureaucratic morass that
has been created other times when Congress has acted. If we don't get
this right, we will end up repeating mistakes of the past. We will
simply create new incentives for illegal immigration, and we will
enhance the problems our country now faces in tracking who is coming
and going across our borders.
Remember, it is estimated that about one-third of those who receive
visas do not leave the United States when their visas expire. So the
problem is not only people coming across the border; the problem is
also people misusing their visas. In 2004, there were just over 30
million visas issued. That is an unbelievable amount, but it is true.
That means there could be up to 10 million people who overstayed their
visas and remained in the United States. Now, of course, most of them
probably didn't stay here permanently. But it is clear from these
statistics that our visa program has a serious problem when it comes to
enforceability.
I strongly believe we must find an orderly way to allow those already
here, many of whom have families, strong community ties, and some who
have U.S. citizen children, to earn legalization over a substantial
period of time. And virtually every poll I have seen has shown that
over 70 percent of the American people agree. They know there are many
people who are critical parts of our workforce. They work in
agriculture, in landscaping, in housing, in the service industry, in
the hotel industry, and they work all throughout our economy. I know
some who not only have children, but their children are excelling. They
not only live here, but they own homes, pay taxes, and they work hard.
This is important so that this population can live fully productive
lives without being subject to abuse or exploitation, and so that
American commerce has the workforce that is necessary for agriculture,
as well as many other industries.
During consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee, of
which you are a distinguished member, Mr. President, we adopted an
amendment referred to as the McCain-Kennedy program that was offered by
Senator Graham. This amendment created an earned legalization program
that would also set up a number of hurdles individuals must pass
through in order to earn their legalization. The Graham amendment was
adopted by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 5 and was in the base bill
previously considered by the Senate.
However, since that time, a new program was created and replaced
McCain-Kennedy in the underlying bill. That program is known as the
Hagel-Martinez compromise. It is important to point out that neither
this body nor the Judiciary Committee has voted to adopt the three-
tiered system which the Hagel-Martinez compromise proposes and which is
now before this body.
Hagel-Martinez would treat people differently, depending on how long
they have been in the United States. It is estimated that 6.7 million
have been in the United States for more than 5 years; 1.6 million, less
than 2 years; and 2.8 million, 2 to 5 years. The source of the numbers
is the Pew Current Population Survey. So we have three tiers--more than
5 years, 2 to 5 years, and less than 2 years.
After an examination of the Hagel-Martinez language, I have come to
believe that the three-tiered system is unworkable, that it would
create a bureaucratic nightmare and it would lead to substantial fraud.
My staff has consulted with current and former Government staff who
have expressed serious concerns with the practical implications of how
such a program could be implemented.
We already know the Department of Homeland Security is overburdened.
Just for a moment, look at the problems they face today. Our current
system is running neither efficiently nor effectively, and we all know
that. Let me just put on the table a few examples.
Currently, the Department of Homeland Security is struggling to
implement a fully functioning US-VISIT Program to monitor those who are
entering and exiting our country. This system of checking people in and
out with a biometric card is only half completed. It is many years
overdue.
The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services struggles with
enormous backlogs in applications from those who come to this country
and attempt to adjust their status legally. FBI background checks often
take between 1 or 2 years to process fingerprints. Naturalization lines
are so long, it can take a person years and sometimes even decades to
get through the system. How on Earth is DHS going to be able to handle
a new program which cannot be run electronically and which will require
massive documentation and enormous staff time?
What we have done is provided a structure for an electronic handling
of the data submitted by the individuals, the electronic verification
of the data, the checking out of this data. Hagel-Martinez creates a
tiered system where those here less than 2 years are subject to
deportation and those here from 2 to 5 years must return to their
country and get themselves somehow into a guest worker program. It is
estimated that 1.6 million people have been here for 2 years or less,
and approximately 2.8 million have been here from 2 to 5 years. So that
is 4.4 million people who are going to be asked to leave the country
one way or another. Do you believe they will? History and reality shows
that they will not. How will the Government find all of them and deport
those who do not leave voluntarily? And if they are found and deported,
what would lead us to believe they will not come right back to join
their families and return to their jobs?
Secondly, individuals who have been here just under 2 or 5 years will
inevitably try to argue they qualify for a higher tier. I think it is
only realistic to expect that these tiers will become a breeding ground
for flawed, fraudulent documents, and true evaluations will be
virtually impossible to make. How on Earth are DHS personnel going to
be able to verify when an individual entered the country to determine
the less than 2 years or the 2- to 5-year tier?
When it comes to the second tier, 2 to 5 years, and the deferred
mandatory departure program of Hagel-Martinez, I am concerned about how
this process is going to function and who is going to follow through
with executing its requirements. How is the Department of Homeland
Security going to find these people who have been here 2 to 5 years and
ensure that they actually leave the United States? Does anyone really
expect that a father or a mother will voluntarily leave their families
and go
[[Page S4854]]
outside the country for this so-called touchback? What is the incentive
for people who have already been living in the United States to come
forward and go through this process?
In order to understand why I have these questions, I think it is
important for everyone to understand how the deferred mandatory
departure program of Hagel-Martinez is supposed to work. There has been
a lot of discussion about the program, but when you read the fine print
of the bill language, there are serious questions and consequences that
need to be better understood.
My understanding of the bill language is that a person who falls into
this second tier, who has been here for 2 to 5 years, may remain in the
United States legally for up to 3 years and then they must leave the
country and find a legal program through which they may reenter the
United States. This is the critical flaw in Hagel-Martinez. People will
not risk leaving their families or their jobs in the hopes that once
they leave the United States they will be able to reenter through a
visa program, whether that be the new H-2C guest worker program or
another visa program.
To compound this problem but ostensibly to make it possible, Hagel-
Martinez waives the 200,000 visa cap that we just reduced from 325,000
in the Bingaman-Feinstein amendment on the H-2C program. In doing that,
this would create a larger bureaucratic hurdle, a difficult standard of
proof, and a complete decimation of the limits on the guest worker
program. Instead of a new guest worker program--H-2C--that will bring
in 200,000 people a year, we would be, in effect, creating a guest
worker program that is supposed to accommodate 2.8 million people, plus
another 200,000 people annually. So through this deferred mandatory
departure, the Congress creates a guest worker program that will need
to accommodate over 3 million people.
But putting all that aside, assuming this was actually doable, there
are other problems. For instance, the H-2C guest worker visa only lasts
a maximum of 6 years. So every person will quickly see that this is not
an automatic path to earn their legalization, and they will be forced
out of the country at the end of the 6 years. Will they go? I doubt it.
I think you will have a new illegal immigrant problem.
The path to legalization has been modified through the amendment
process on this floor, and now an H-2C worker will likely need their
employer to petition for a green card on their behalf. An employer has
to petition for it, meaning that, for 2 million people, their only hope
to continue to live in the United States is through the grace of an
employer. I think this places an undue burden on an employer, and it
leaves workers vulnerable to exploitation from bad employers.
Also, H-2C workers, their spouses, and their children are not allowed
to remain in the United States if the worker fails to work for an
approved employer for more than 60 consecutive at any time during the 6
years, with no exception for health problems or injuries. This will
mean that if an individual does become injured or ill, they become
deportable. In addition, all rights to administrative or judicial
review of any future removal actions, are eliminated. Combined, in my
view, these provisions are ill-advised. They make individuals extremely
vulnerable to abuse, they put high burdens on employers, and they open
the situation up to exploitation.
That leaves me to wonder, with these shortcomings, why would anyone
in these categories participate in this program?
Why would someone who is already living here clandestinely, working,
and already active in their community voluntarily come forward and
register with the Department of Homeland Security and leave the United
States to join this program? With these risks and pitfalls, my
experience in California and my 13\1/2\ years on the Immigration
Subcommittee tells me they won't. At worst, I fear we are creating an
incentive for individuals to continue living under an illegal status,
and I don't know how that benefits this Nation, the people of our
Nation, the employers, or the people who are here today in an
undocumented status. At best, we are creating a new burden on DHS to
locate and monitor millions of people who are clandestinely integrated
into the fabric of our Nation today.
In addition, the Hispanic National Bar Association specifically
criticized this second tier, and it wrote this: We are particularly
concerned that requiring individuals in the [second tier] to leave this
country in order to fully legalize their status will result in severe
disruptions for families, workers, and employers . . . We [also]
believe that creating an additional class of undocumented immigrants
will lead to greater administrative burdens as it will require the
implementation of two different paths to legalization.
I think that is a very true statement.
Let me speak about the third tier for those who have been here for
less than 2 years because according to Hagel-Martinez, they must all be
deported. This means that DHS would be required to find and deport 2
million people. That is the bill we are going to pass--2 million, find
them, deport them. How is that going to get done? Even President Bush
acknowledged that such a large-scale deportation program is unworkable
when he said this:
It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of
people and send them across the border.
The only method to compel compliance with Hagel-Martinez is through
employer sanctions, and we know from experience over dozens of years
that employer sanctions do not work.
In fiscal year 2004, only 46 employers were convicted of illegal
immigrant employment--46 employers--out of the tens of thousands of
employers whom we know employ the undocumented, and the number of
employer sanctions cases resulting in fines has declined from a peak of
nearly 900 under President Clinton to only 124 in fiscal year 2003. Not
to mention even when employers are raided and then sanctioned, there is
a backlash from the public.
So I am one who doesn't believe it is realistic to assume that,
first, the Department of Homeland Security is going to be able to go
out and deport 2 million people; and then secondly, to ensure that the
other 2.8 million leave to go back for the touchback program.
So because of these concerns about the workability, the practicality,
and the real-world impact of such a three-tiered system, I believe we
have to create a much more efficient process, and I believe the orange
card process is the best way to ensure that our policy goals in
creating a path to legalization can be implemented and realized.
The structural flaws of Hagel-Martinez must be corrected, and this
amendment essentially corrects them. It is workable, it is practical,
it does not reward illegal immigration, but it creates a pathway for
everyone in this country as of the beginning of this year to show over
a substantial period of time annually that they have been and will
continue to be a responsible and productive member of American society.
It puts the burden on them to go in, to petition, to submit their
fingerprints, to submit their photographs, and to wait for those to be
checked out before they would be issued the orange card.
Once you have this orange card then you know you are legal. You can
come in and out. It has the biometric identifiers. It is fraudproof.
And the orange card has the additional ability of being numbered, so
you also know that the lower numbers are going to people who have been
here for the 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years that we know people, in fact,
have been in this country. It is done in a way that can be carried out
electronically, and I think that is part of the strength of the
program.
Here we have a pathway that requires an individual to show over a
substantial period of time that they have been and will continue to be
a responsible and productive member of American society and to do so
with certain tangible deeds: the tangible deed of work, the tangible
deed of living a legal life, the tangible deed of paying back taxes,
the tangible deed of learning to speak English. This is not amnesty.
Nothing happens immediately. Amnesty is the immediate transition of
someone from an illegal status to a legal status. If an individual
cannot demonstrate these things, they will not receive a green card at
the end of this long pathway, and then at that time they are
deportable.
If a bipartisan majority agrees that an earned legalization program
is a critical part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, then the
program
[[Page S4855]]
must work on the streets and it must be carefully structured so that it
can be carried out. I believe this program can be carried out, and I am
sorry to say that as currently structured, I do not believe the three-
tiered process of Hagel-Martinez can or will be carried out.
This is an amendment on which I hope we will vote. It is at the desk.
I ask my colleagues to look at it, study it, and if they have
modifications--this is a complicated issue--if they have modifications
they would like to see, please bring these to us because we hope there
will be a vote in the next couple of days.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. McCONNELL are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been a Member of the Senate, now
in my 26th year, and one of the issues that I have some regret about is
voting for amnesty in the 1986 immigration bill, the last time that we
had amnesty for people who illegally came to our country.
Another regret I have that has followed on is that probably we have
not done enough to keep on top of our laws of anticipating when there
was labor or workers needed from outside the country to come into our
country, and we haven't provided then maybe the workers that we need
when there aren't enough Americans to fill various jobs. That could be
laborers in the case of construction, it could be service workers in
the case of hotels, it could be engineers, if we don't educate enough
engineers. And probably those two regrets I have relate to how I feel
about the present legislation before the Senate.
I have looked back at my vote for amnesty, and I have tried to recall
as best I can 20 years back. But it seems to me that I was convinced at
that time that if we had amnesty along with worker verification, along
with sanctions against workers, which I think was set in the law with a
$10,000 fine, we would solve all of our illegal immigration problems.
Well, at that particular time, we did not predict and foresee the
development of an industry of fraudulent documentmaking, so that if I
came to this country illegally and I went in to get a job and I showed
a passport that looked like the real thing but was fraudulent, and the
employer didn't see the difference and they hired me, then he was
absolved of any responsibility for willfully hiring a person illegally
in this country. And amnesty was supposed to work with that to legalize
1 million people who were illegally in the country at that particular
time.
So looking back now 20 years, it seems as though we winked at abuse
of the law, and it gives credibility to people who think they can avoid
the law because there is never going to be a penalty for it. So what
was a 1 million-person problem in 1986, today the number is up to a 12
million-person problem, people coming into this country illegally.
So I have some apologies to the people of this country because I made
a judgment that amnesty in 1986 would solve our problems, and ignoring
illegality, I find, has encouraged further illegality, and we have 12
million people now in the country illegally.
Then I wonder whether, now that I am 72 years old, 20 years down the
road when my successor is in office will they be dealing with an
illegal alien problem of 25 million. Another thing I learned from 1986
was that we allowed family members of people who were here illegally to
then come to the head of the line, and instead of legalizing 1 million
people, we probably made it possible for 3 million people to be in this
country as opposed to waiting to come in under the normal process.
Then, the other part of it, to repeat, is maybe if we had been a little
more on top of the employment situation in the United States in recent
years, we would have changed our laws so that more people could come
legally to this country to work. Having learned from those lessons--
obviously I have been burned once on the issue of amnesty--I am not
sure I want to be burned twice on the issue of amnesty.
Of course, at this point, with 1 more week to go in the debate on
this bill and many amendments, I don't know, there might be a bill I
can vote for. But I don't think I am prepared to vote for amnesty
again. I am not prepared to vote for amnesty again and then create a
problem 20 years down the road for our successors to have yet a bigger
problem.
I think we have learned in America that we are a nation of the rule
of law and that we ought to enforce the law. I think we made a mistake
by ignoring illegality in 1986 because it encouraged further
illegality. It is a little bit like getting crime under control in New
York City. When Mayor Giuliani first came into office, he decided that
the way to get at big crime was not to allow the petty crime. He went
to work concentrating on people who were abusing the law even in a
minimal sense. Soon it made an impact that he was going to be tough on
crime, and pretty soon you found a great reduction in major crime. If
we start enforcing our immigration laws and if at the same time we have
a realistic law for people to legally come to this country, then maybe
we will be able to get the sovereignty of our Nation to what it is
supposed to be, and that is at least the controlling of our borders.
One of the things I wish to make clear is that there is a guest
worker program used in place of amnesty. I understood previous speakers
to say you can earn your way to legality, you can earn your way to
citizenship. There are a lot of people who commit crimes who never get
a chance to work their way out of that crime. It probably signals to
people in other lands a softness of our concern about whether people
come here obeying our laws and sends a signal that it is OK to
disregard our laws. So a guest worker program that is used to cover up
amnesty I can't buy into.
There are proposals connected with this bill to allow people to come
here legally to work, to have a job and to have papers when they cross
the border to come into our country to work. We are expanding some of
those provisions for people to legally come to this country, and we are
inviting people to come in as guest workers.
My belief is people would rather come to work legally than illegally.
If we had a temporary worker program that was not a bureaucratic
nightmare and people who wanted to work in America and had a job in
America knew they could come here legally, they would choose the legal
way to come as opposed to the illegal way to come. I believe if we had
such a program that worked and was efficient and people could count on
it, including employers counting on it, then pretty soon, one by one,
we would have legal workers replacing illegal workers because surely
employers would rather hire people who came here legally.
If we are going to have an amnesty program, it ought to be one about
which people can at least say that it meets the commonsense test, that
it is not a joke, that it is a real, serious effort to make people earn
their way to citizenship. I want to point out some things in the
present bill before the Senate that do not meet the laugh test, as far
as amnesty is concerned.
The biggest flaw is providing legal status to 12 million people who
are breaking our law by coming here illegally. Not only do we give
amnesty to those who are here, but we give it to spouses and children
in their home countries. In 1986, I voted for amnesty. I was burned
once. I don't want to be burned twice. With a 1 million-people problem
at that time, we actually ended up maybe with 3 million people coming
here under the laws we passed at that time, particularly considering
family. If it is 12 million people we are talking about now, and 3
times that, are we talking about 36 million people as opposed to 12
million people? Amnesty is giving a free ride to 12 million
[[Page S4856]]
people, and maybe 36 million people if you consider 3 for 1. That was
the lesson we learned in 1986.
Let's look at the so-called earned legalization provisions.
Proponents of the bill say that an alien has to pay their taxes, pay a
fine, learn English, and get in the back of the line--the line leading
to legalization, the line that eventually could lead to citizenship.
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues who say that they are
earning their citizenship. I will go into detail about each of these
provisions, starting with the $2,000 fine. An illegal alien can go from
illegal to legal just by paying a fine of $2,000. That is chump change,
particularly considering that the same people could have paid a
smuggler five times that amount to get across the border in the first
place. This is not a heavy fine for the law that they broke. People
here illegally knowingly crossed our border and overstayed their visa
each day. They get legal status overnight for a small price; $2,000 is
a small price to pay for citizenship, especially since they have been
working in the country and making a living for over 5 years. This fine
is nothing but a slap on the hand, and it doesn't fit the illegality
involved.
The fine of $2,000 isn't due right away. In other words, you don't
have to pay it right away. For those in the amnesty program, what is
called the first-tier program, aliens here illegally are supposed to
pay a fine of $2,000. However, the way the bill is written, many aliens
here illegally may not have to pay that fine until year 8, 8 years from
that point. The bill says that the $2,000 fine has to be paid, in the
words of the legislation, ``prior to adjudication.'' What does that
mean? The fine is not going to be required up front. If it is left the
way it is, then the alien here illegally can live, work, and play in
our country and is immune from deportation, all without paying any fine
for maybe up to 8 years and all the time imposing a financial burden on
local taxpayers for health, education, and infrastructure costs that
are not reimbursed for 5 to 10 years.
Let's look at the requirement about learning English and civics.
Under the bill, an illegal alien could fulfill the requirement of
learning English history and U.S. Government by ``pursuing a course of
study.'' Until Senator Inhofe's amendment last week, the alien didn't
have to show their understanding of English or civics, yet the authors
of this legislation wanted us to believe that in order to get this
legal status, you had to show proficiency in English and understand how
our political system works. The Inhofe amendment took care of that, but
it was certainly a low bar for people illegally in our country to meet.
On the issue of paying taxes: Under the bill, aliens illegally in our
country only have to pay 3 of the last years in back taxes. Let me ask
any taxpayer, wouldn't you like to have the choice of only paying taxes
on 3 out of any 5 years? But that is supposed to be a step toward
earning your way to citizenship. Why, if any of us did that and fraud
was involved, we would be in jail. At the very least, you would have to
pay all your taxes for all those years and pay fines and penalties.
But, no, people illegally in our country get an option. You don't get
an option; my constituents don't get an option, what years they want to
pay back taxes. We have a tax gap of $345 billion in this country,
taxes that the IRS is owed but that are not collected. Of course, this
makes the problem even worse. This bill would treat tax law breakers
better than the American people. Let's make the alien who is here
illegally, who gets amnesty, pay all outstanding tax liabilities. That
is the only way this bill--or at least the portion of this bill we call
amnesty--can meet the commonsense test.
On the issue of payment of taxes and the burden that might cause for
the IRS, that is another portion of this bill that doesn't meet the
commonsense test. Under the bill, the Internal Revenue Service has to
prove that an alien here illegally has paid their back taxes. Frankly,
it will be impossible for the Internal Revenue Service to truly enforce
this because the Agency cannot audit every single person in the
country.
I am chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. We have jurisdiction
over the Internal Revenue Service. I can tell you that the tax man is
going to have a difficult time verifying whether an individual owes any
taxes. Why aren't we putting the burden on the aliens? They need to go
back and they need to figure out what they owe. That is what each one
of us does every spring between January and April 15, before we file
our taxes. We figure out how much we owe, and we have to pay what we
owe. Then in turn let who is here illegally certify to the Internal
Revenue Service that they have paid their dues.
I have an amendment to fix this language and allow the IRS to devise
a system to make that work. But the end result for this chairman of the
Finance Committee is that these people who are here illegally should
not have a better tax posture toward the IRS than any other hard-
working American man and woman.
Now I want to go to security clearances to be given in 90 days,
another part of this bill that doesn't meet the commonsense test. The
compromise would require the Department of Homeland Security to do a
background check on aliens who are here illegally. In fact, this
compromise has placed a time limit on our Federal agents. The bill
encourages the Federal Government to complete the background checks on
10 million aliens who are here illegally within 90 days. Can you
imagine that?
Can you imagine taking care of background checks on 10 million people
in 90 days? That doesn't meet the commonsense test. It is unrealistic.
It is not only unrealistic, it is impossible, and a huge burden, as you
can see, and a huge expense. Homeland Security will surely try to hurry
with those background checks. They will pressure Congress to rush them.
There will be a lot of rubberstamping of applications despite possible
gang participation, criminal activity, terrorist ties, or other
violations of our laws.
I am not talking about the vast majority of people who are working in
America and here illegally. I am talking about a small percentage of
these people. But with that small percentage, we ought to be sure our
national security concerns are taken care of, and, no, we should not be
rushing these clearances through in 90 days.
When it comes to criminal activity, terrorist ties, other violations
of the law, and gang participation, that is not true. I will bet that
99 percent of the people who are here illegally, who are working hard
to improve their lot in life but still here illegally, violating our
laws, want a better life. But a small group of them, we have to know
that they are not a national security risk. And you can't do that in 90
days with 10 million people.
Let's talk about during the amnesty process and people having to go
to the back of the line to work their way toward citizenship. The
proponents say the aliens who are illegal would have to go to the back
of the line so they are not getting ahead of those who use our legal
channels. That whole approach, if you are going to have amnesty, is the
way to do it. This doesn't meet the commonsense test, but someone has
to explain to me actually how it works.
This is important because at my town meetings--I had 19 town meetings
in Iowa during the Easter break--some of the most vociferous statements
against amnesty were made by naturalized citizens who said: How come I
had to go through all these things and stand in line for long periods
of time to become a citizen or even be legally in this country and you
are going to move all of these other people to the head of the line?
The theory is that they are going to take care of that criticism in
this bill, but it isn't very practical. How is the Citizenship and
Immigration Service going to keep track of these people? They can't
even count right because they give out more visas than the law
requires. Besides, an alien on an amnesty track is getting the benefits
that people in their home countries waiting in line to come here
legally can't get. This whole process denigrates the value of legal
immigration.
While here, they get to travel, send their kids to school, open a
business, and get health services. Is that really going to the back of
the line?
The work requirements also don't meet the commonsense test. The bill
says that an illegal alien has to prove that they have worked in the
United States for 3 of the last 5 years. It also
[[Page S4857]]
says they have to work for 6 years after the date of enactment.
However, there is no continuous work requirement through amnesty. So
you could work 30 days on, 30 days off, 30 days on. It is dishonest to
say these people are working the entire time.
Let's get to the evidence of that work history which the bill
requires. It says a person illegally in the United States has to prove
they have worked in the United States 3 of the last 5 years. How do you
do that? They can show the IRS or Social Security Administration
records or records maintained by Federal, State, and local governments.
Their employer can attest that they have been working; their labor
union or day labor center can attest, but that is not all. It might
meet the commonsense test. But if you can't get records from the IRS or
the labor union, you can ask anybody to attest that you have been
employed. The bill doesn't even prohibit the alien to attest
themselves. Anybody, including a friend, a neighbor, a man on the
street, could sign the attestation.
This opens the door to fraud. The Government cannot realistically
investigate them. Senator Vitter tightened this loophole, but sworn
affidavits still exist. This is an issue of confidentiality in
reporting. If an alien illegally in the country is applying for
amnesty, the Federal Government cannot use information provided in the
application by adjudication; that is, adjudicating that petition. If
aliens illegally in the country write in their application that they
are related to, let's say, Bin Laden, then our Government cannot use
that information. In fact, it says that the Secretary of Homeland
Security can only share that information if someone requests it in
writing.
Why shouldn't the Secretary be required to provide that information
to the CIA? If we can link an alien to a drug trafficking kingpin, then
why shouldn't the application be a source of intelligence?
This provision severely handicaps our national security and criminal
investigators, and again a provision in this bill that doesn't meet the
commonsense test.
Let's look at the so-called $10,000 fine for bureaucrats. Let's say a
Federal agent uses the information I just spoke about by an alien in an
application for amnesty. Under the bill, the agent would be fined
$10,000. Yes, fined five times more than the alien has to pay to get
amnesty in the first place. That does not pass the commonsense test.
Let's look at qualifying for Social Security for aliens who are here
illegally. The bill does not prohibit illegal aliens from getting
credit for the money they put into the Social Security system if they
worked in the United States illegally. Immigrants here illegally who
paid Social Security taxes using a stolen Social Security number did
not do so with the expectation that they would ever qualify for Social
Security benefits. They paid those taxes solely as a cost of doing
their job. They never paid into the system with a reasonable
expectation that they would receive any benefits. People who have
broken the law should not be able to collect benefits based upon
unlawful conduct. Their conduct has caused damage to countless numbers
of American citizens and legal immigrants. Because of breaking our law,
the victims are faced with Internal Revenue audits for unpaid taxes.
Americans have trouble finding their own jobs and are left to reclaim
the credit and clear up their personnel information. The Enzi amendment
would have taken care of this, but it did not pass.
Our Members, again, gave up an opportunity of having this legislation
meet another commonsense test. Employers get a criminal pardon for
hiring illegal aliens under this bill. Not only does this bill legalize
people who are here. illegally, it is going to pardon employers who
committed criminal activity in hiring illegal aliens in the first
place.
The bill says employers of aliens applying for adjustment status
``shall not be subject to civil or criminal tax liability relating
directly to the employment of such aliens.''
That means a business that hired illegal workers now gets off Scott-
free from paying the taxes they should have paid. This encourages
employers to violate our tax laws and not pay what they owe the Federal
Government. Why should they get off the hook?
What damage are we doing, once again as we did in 1986, in ignoring
the breaking of law, giving amnesty and encouraging further disregard
for the law in the future?
In addition to not having to pay their taxes, employers are also off
the hook for providing illegal aliens with records or evidence that
they have worked in the United States. The employers are not subject to
civil or criminal liability for having employed illegal aliens in the
past or before enactment.
Then fines for failing to depart, for aliens illegally in this
country--those in what the bill calls the second tier who have been
here for a period of time, from 2 years to 5 years, they must depart
and reenter. If an alien doesn't depart immediately, they face a fine
of $2,000. If they don't leave within 3 years, they get a $3,000 fine.
These fines are not incentives for aliens to leave. They could then
live in the United States for up to 3 years without facing deportation.
There is no requirement for them to leave immediately.
Take a look at that subtlety in this legislation. If you want to be
satisfied with paying a $3,000 fine, you can stay here an additional 3
years illegally, and we presumably know that you are here illegally.
The second-tier employment requirements--these illegal aliens also
have to prove that they have been working in the United States since
January 7, 2004. They can prove it by attesting to the Federal
Government or an employer, not necessarily the one that employed them.
They can also get around the requirement by providing bank records,
business records, sworn affidavits, or remittance records.
Since when does proof of sending money back to Mexico prove
employment? That, too, doesn't meet the commonsense test and is another
case where the legislation talks about mandatory departure. It really
is not mandatory.
The bill says the Secretary of Homeland Security may grant deferred
mandatory departure for aliens here illegally in the 2- to 5-year
category. He may, the law says, also waive the departure requirement if
it would create a substantial hardship for the alien to leave.
In this legislation, there is a waiver interview requirement. Illegal
aliens in the second tier who are required to leave the country can
reenter the United States on a visa, but the bill says they do not have
to be interviewed. In fact, it doesn't even give discretion to our
consular officers around the world to require an interview.
I have advocated for in-person interviews since 9/11, especially
since the hijackers weren't subject to appear in person. Today, the
State Department is requiring interviews for most applicants and waives
them for certain people, particularly those over 60 years of age. If an
adjudicator wants to have an interview before giving a person a visa,
they should have the power to do it.
Guest workers, under the provisions of this compromise, can become
permanent workers. Unlike almost all visas, the H-2C visa can be used
as an avenue to legal permanent residence and citizenship. The H-2C
visa was created as a temporary worker program. In fact, the alien, at
the time of application, has to prove they did not plan to abandon
their residence in the foreign country. However, the visa can be
redeemed for legal permanent residence after only 1 year in the United
States.
H-2C workers can self-petition under this compromise. No other visa
program allows an alien to petition for himself or herself to go from
temporary worker to seeking citizenship. After 4 years, the alien can
sponsor themselves for permanent residence in the United States. We had
an amendment to tighten this provision, but the self-petition measure
is still in the bill.
Family members of H-2C visa holders need not be healthy. Under
current law, aliens must prove they are admissible and meet certain
health standards. Many times, visa applicants must have a medical exam
to show they do not have communicable diseases. They have to be up to
date on immunizations and cannot have mental disorders. Spouses and
children of H-2C visa holders, however, are exempt from this
requirement. I have an amendment to fix this provision.
The H-1B visa cap can increase automatically. The annual cap is
increased from 65,000 to 115,000, but it contains an
[[Page S4858]]
additional built-in escalator. If the cap is reached in 1 year, it can
be increased by 20 percent the next year. It cannot be decreased; it
can only go up.
There will be no serious evaluation of the need for foreign workers,
and Congress loses its control over importation of cheaper labor.
There are no strings attached in this bill to new student visas. The
bill creates a new visa that lowers the bar for foreign students who
wish to come here and study math, science, and engineering. They can
work off campus while in school, thus taking American jobs. They also
can easily adjust from a student to a U.S. worker. They do not have to
prove they will return to their home country when applying for the
visa. Why would a student come here to study anything if they could be
approved instantly without the requirement of the old visa system? Have
some people forgotten that the September 11 terrorists came on student
visas?
Now the US-VISIT provision. Congress mandated in 1996 the entry-exit
system known to us under the acronym of US-VISIT. This program was
authorized 10 years ago. It is still not up and running.
The bill says Homeland Security has to give Congress a schedule for
equipping all land border ports of entry and making the system
interoperable with other screening systems. Why, oh why, aren't they
getting this job done? Why does Congress give the agency more time to
get this system running? It does not make sense for us to ask for
another timeline; it seems sensible just to get it done.
In the final analysis, I am probably only 1 of 15 Senators still in
this Senate since the 1986 immigration law was passed, but I was led to
believe in 1986 that by voting for amnesty with employer sanctions, we
would solve our illegal immigration problem. It just encouraged further
illegal immigration. I quantify that by saying it was a 1 million-
person program in 1986. Today, it is a 12 million-person problem. And
20 years from now, if we do not do it right this time, it is going to
be a 25 million-person problem. You get burned once, but you should not
get burned twice or you have not learned anything. In the process, we
ought to get it right this time. I don't think granting amnesty 20
years after we made the first mistake is the way to do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the
leadership of Senator Grassley. He spoke from the heart. He was here
during the 1986 amnesty debate. I happened to go back and I saw a
summary of that debate. The Members argued on one side saying it was a
one-time amnesty; others said amnesty begets amnesty, that if this
occurs, there will be more to come. In truth, we see which side has
prevailed.
Chairman Grassley has given much insight and wisdom. I hope our
Members will consider what he has to say. It is thoughtful, honest, and
direct, as always.
I do remain troubled that the Senate is moving steadily, like a train
down the tracks, to pass an immigration bill that is deeply flawed. It
dramatically increases legal immigration and has no guarantee that
significantly improved enforcement procedures will ever be carried out.
In fact, the Senate rejected the Isakson amendment which would have
conditioned amnesty on effective enforcement. Clearly, we have not
comprehended the ramifications of rewarding those who have broken our
laws with all the benefits we give to those who lawfully enter, thereby
undermining, as Senator Grassley said, the rule of law in this country.
Further, this legislation, which claims to be comprehensive, provides
a radical increase in future legal immigration almost with no
discussion or consideration of what is good policy for our future. In
addition, the legislation has been crafted in a way that hides and
conceals, even misrepresents, its real effects.
Thus, I have said it should never pass. I have said that these
actions are unworthy of the great Senate of the United States. I have
said, and I think correctly, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
What should we be doing? What should the Senate of the United States
be doing? We should be working openly and diligently on these issues
and should have been for some time. We should be seeking the input of
experts and carefully studying relevant data. Certainly we should be
consulting with those who have hired us--at least for a term--the
American people.
In my view, the American people have been right from the beginning.
They have rejected an immigration system that makes a mockery of law, a
system that rewards illegal behavior, while placing unnecessary
bureaucratic hurdles in the face of those who dutifully attempt to
comply with the law. In the decades before the 1986 amnesty and after,
they have urged and pleaded with the powers that be to end the
illegality, to secure the border, and to develop a system based on the
commonsense interests of our Nation. The American people have been
arrogantly ignored by the executive branch and by the Congress.
We have failed to fulfill our responsibilities, in direct opposition
to the legitimate and clearly stated will of the American people.
In every way, the American people have been correct. They have been
motivated by the highest of American ideals, despite what the critics
say. They have sought a lawful, wise system of immigration. It is
unfair to ascribe to the good American people the words of some
frustrated and extreme person whose anger overflows--the talk show
callers and the like. That is not the heart of the American people,
just because someone mis-spoke on a talk show or in a conversation.
What they are saying is legitimate, principled, and consistent with the
American ideals. We have not responded to it. We did not respond to it
before 1986. We did not respond to it in 1986. We have not responded to
it since.
The American people will support a fair and generous immigration
policy for the future, and they will support compassionate and fair
treatment of people who have come here illegally. They are not asking
that they be prosecuted, locked up, or that every one be hauled out of
America. That is not so. No one is proposing that in any serious way.
Make no mistake, we cannot treat lightly and it is a grave step to
concede, to admit, that the laws of the United States will be ignored
and not enforced. During the 1986 amnesty debate, it was argued that
amnesty would be a one-time event. People argued that if that were
done, it would weaken the rule of law and encourage more people to
enter the country illegally, confident that at some day in the future,
amnesty would be available to them, too. I ask my colleagues, who was
right 20 years ago?
Senator Grassley just told us who was right. He said he believed it
was a mistake when he voted for it. Not many Senators have the gumption
to come to the Senate and admit they made a mistake. While amnesty just
20 years ago created a legal route to citizenship for 3 million people
not here legally, today we are expecting, 20 years later, 11 million
and perhaps 20 million people could benefit from this amnesty.
We must acknowledge that when you play around with the rule of law in
a nation that expects to be treated seriously, you have done something
quite significant. It cannot be altered or undermined without real
consequences. Life has consequences. If you pass a law and then turn
around and admit you cannot enforce it, with a promise that we are
going to enforce it in the future and we are going to allow everyone
who violated a law a free pass, what does that say about the future?
These are not light matters. If we could do it like that, if we could
make this kind of 180-degree turn without consequences, it would be one
thing, but life is not that way. We are supposed to be a mature branch
of Government of the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth. Surely
we know that. Surely we know we cannot do this lightly. I am afraid
some have not given enough thought to that.
I wanted to share those remarks at the beginning because we are
dealing with huge numbers of people who will be legalized. We will be
dealing with a fundamental expansion of immigration, a massive amnesty,
large increases in governmental expenditures, and an enforcement
promise I am not sure we will ever see occur because enforcement was
promised in 1986. It was
[[Page S4859]]
faithfully and honestly guaranteed by supporters of that bill in 1986,
and it was never accomplished.
I will introduce four amendments this afternoon. The four amendments
are, first, a numerical limit amendment, an amendment to cap the
immigration increases caused by this bill. The numbers CBO and the
White House say we should expect include 7 million and their dependents
under amnesty. Additionally, CBO and the White House estimate that
under this bill 8 million new immigrants will flow into the country
above the current level 10 million over the next 10 years. Got that?
What my amendment will do is cap green cards at 7 million for amnesty,
plus we are going to add 8 million to the current flow in the future.
We think the numbers are higher than that. But that is what the CBO
says the numbers are. That is what the White House has trumpeted as the
numbers. So at least, I suggest, this Senate should make clear those
are the numbers, and let's pass it, so we will not have this danger
that the bill will spin out of control or in fact will be much more
generous to immigration than some are currently suggesting, even CBO.
Another amendment will be the earned-income tax credit. This would be
an amendment to eliminate the earned-income tax credit for illegal
aliens and those who have adjusted status under this bill. Once illegal
aliens become citizens, they will once again be eligible for the
earned-income tax credit. But it is a huge expense, maybe over $20
billion over 20 years.
I will have an amendment to deal with chain migration which has to do
with provisions that are continued in current law but are not
principled and do not serve our Nation well. If we want to admit more
skill-based immigrants, we must reduce the right of immigrants to bring
in certain categories of relatives, regardless of skill, regardless of
ability to perform.
We will work on those four amendments, and I hope we will be able to
get a vote on them. I know people are saying: No, no, we need to move
this bill on. We can't go another day. We have to finish this debate.
You guys have had your little amendments. The train is moving. Get off
the track. We are going forward. And I am already hearing that we are
moving in that direction: The debate is going to be limited, and we
will have to curtail our legitimate amendments.
I submit to you, the amendments I am offering here are legitimate
amendments that go to real issues of national importance, not some
technical thing.
My amendment that deals with the total number of immigrants into the
United States comports with the estimates of the Congressional Budget
Office which has run these numbers. I thought they were low, but that
is what they say, and the White House has jumped right on it and said:
These are the numbers, and Sessions and the Heritage Foundation are all
wrong. Their numbers are not good. These are good numbers, so let's
just have a vote on it and let's make it law.
They estimate that a total of 7 million illegal aliens and their
dependents will be granted status under the bill. Of the 11 million,
they say 7 million will be granted status.
Additionally, the CBO and the White House estimate this bill will
increase current immigration levels--which are now about 1 million a
year legally--by about 8 million over a 10-year period, making total
immigration into the United States over the next 10 years nearly 18
million instead of the currently expected 10 million, setting aside
those who get amnesty.
Under various provisions of current law, the United States issues
just under 1 million--approximately 950,000--green cards every year to
people coming through immigration channels legally.
In 10 years, if this law remains the same as today, almost 10 million
people will join the United States. Over 20 years, it would be about
18.9 million people--just under 20 million--under current law.
Under this bill that is on the floor today, we have been shocked to
find the breadth of the numbers.
Almost 2 weeks ago, my staff and the Heritage Foundation did separate
extensive analyses to determine the total number of people who would be
coming into America under this bill, if it passes.
At a press conference last Monday--the first time anybody had even
discussed it--Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the Heritage
Foundation, joined with me to reveal the results of our studies and to
shed some light on the future immigration policy changes in the bill.
According to my projections, the bill would have increased the legal
immigration population by 78 million to 217 million over the course of
the next 20 years. I would note, the current population of the United
States today is less than 300 million. So 100 million would be a one-
third increase in the population by immigration; 200 million, of
course, would be two-thirds of an increase in the population.
Mr. Rector's estimate was within the range I projected--coming in at
100 million over the course of 20 years. I just tried to figure out
what the low numbers could be and the high numbers could be. He focused
on what he thought the number would turn out to be. He found it to be
103 million people over the next 20 years--one-third of the current
population of the United States of America.
So the day after those numbers were released, the Senate adopted an
amendment offered by Senator Bingaman--I see him on the floor today--
which is, I think, perhaps, the most significant amendment we have
adopted to date, that capped the number of people who could come into
the country under that bill's new H-2C temporary guest worker program
at 200,000 per year, not 325,000. And it ended this 20-percent
automatic escalator clause.
I say to Senator Bingaman, I thank you for your effectiveness on that
amendment. And it ended up having a pretty nice vote. But until that
time, we had not begun to discuss on the floor of the Senate anything
other than enforcement at the border and amnesty provisions. We had not
even thought about it. How did they put this in there? How did they
come up with an automatic 20-percent increase in immigration for a low-
skilled provision of this bill? Who wrote that in there? Did anybody
even know it was there?
If my fine staff had not been digging into it, I am not sure it would
have been found. Well, the Heritage Foundation also dug into it, but
awfully late. The bill had been tried to be pushed through this Senate
about a month ago without any debate, without any amendments. They were
just going to move that through. So it was a good improvement.
We now expect, after this however, that the numbers are still huge. I
project the expected numbers in the next 20 years will be between 73
million and 92 million. Robert Rector has estimated that it will be 66
million over the next 210 years. He didn't include H-1B in his
calculations.
So without any growth in the H-1B, the high-skilled visa program, we
come in at 73 million. Under the maximum growth, we would come in at 92
million. Current levels, under current law, would be 10 million. Now,
that is a big, big deal. It represents a serious policy decision of the
people of the United States. And how many American people know we are
talking about that? And 92 million is over four times the current rate
of immigration in this country--five times really. From where did that
come?
So even after Senator Bingaman's effective amendment, it is important
to remember that both the Heritage Foundation's--Mr. Robert Rector's--
projections and mine calculate the bill will still increase current
levels of immigration three- to fivefold over the next 20 years. The
realistic estimate, I think, is four times the current rate. Is that
what we need? Maybe it is. But we sure have not talked about it. Have
you heard the American people consulted on that? We already have a
pretty generous immigration system, I submit. It brings in a million
people a year.
People say: Well, you have lots of illegal immigrants too. That would
be 50 percent more, maybe 500,000 a year, as estimated. That is not
three, four, five times the current rate.
Last Tuesday, the CBO released its final score of the Senate
immigration bill. They estimated that if it passes, it would result in
an 8 million person increase in the population over the first 10 years.
The precise estimate is 7.8 million, which can be found on page 4 of
the CBO score.
[[Page S4860]]
This estimated 8 million increase accounts for only future legal
immigration caused by the bill. It does not include an estimate for the
number of illegal aliens. We are not going to take that to zero,
surely. Surely, we will make some progress to reduce illegal
immigration, but it is not going to zero.
The CBO estimate for how many in the illegal alien population would
benefit from the bill's amnesty provisions is contained in a separate
calculation on page 22. On page 22, CBO estimates that 1 million
illegal aliens will be adjusted under the AgJOBS provisions, and that
two-thirds of the 6 million illegal aliens here for more than 5 years,
and 50 percent of the 2 million illegal aliens here between 2 and 5
years, will adjust status under the bill's provisions.
So according to CBO, a total of 6 million illegal immigrants will
become legal permanent--permanent--residents under the bill and be
placed on an automatic path to citizenship.
Now, the White House, last Thursday, in a press release, entitled
``Setting the Record Straight''--OK--wholeheartedly embraced the CBO
report and claimed that the 8 million future immigration estimate by
CBO is ``consistent with most research on immigration issues.''
The White House press release also embraced the CBO estimate on the
current illegal alien population but stated it a little differently.
According to the White House, CBO estimated that about one-third of
illegal immigrants eligible for legalization under the bill are
unlikely to become legal permanent residents. Therefore, the logical
conclusion of this statement is that two-thirds of the eligible illegal
alien population will likely become legal permanent residents.
The White House press statement directly implies that the White House
does not expect more than two-thirds of the illegal alien population to
become legal permanent residents under the bill.
If 10.3 million people have been illegally present for more than 2
years, two-thirds of that number would mean approximately 7 million
people now living here illegally will benefit from the amnesty
provisions. This estimate--7 million--is 1 million higher than the way
CBO lays out the numbers on page 22 of their score.
As the press statement points out, these estimates are much lower
than the estimates that Robert Rector or my staff, after extensive
review, came up with.
Although I highly doubt we have true numbers from the CBO, I
sincerely hope they are accurate, and not mine. It is imperative that
the American people, however, be able to trust their Government--
particularly those agencies that enforce these laws--when discussing
issues such as these. My amendment will adopt the CBO and White House
estimates as the realistic result of S. 2611's increases in
immigration.
Under the amendment we are offering, the number of green cards that
CBO and the White House estimate will be needed will be made available
for the adjustment of status provisions and future immigration levels
caused by the bill.
First, the amendment limits the number of green cards available under
the bill's amnesty provisions to two-thirds of the qualified illegal
alien population of about 10.3 million--a total of 7 million green
cards.
Second, the amendment limits the increase in future immigration to 8
million above the current level of 10 million over 10 years. Under the
amendment, the total number of green cards issued shall not exceed 18
million over any 10-year period, starting with the 2007-2016 10-year
period.
Because real numbers of current immigration levels would only reach
about 9,500,000 in 10 years, an additional 500,000 green cards are
added to the White House's estimate in this amendment.
It is important that we limit the bill's effects to the numbers being
used to justify the bill's passage, at least. The American people are
much more accepting when they know the numbers we are asking them to
believe in. And they are asking us to make sure we tell them
truthfully, and that we comply with it. Though I am not in favor of
granting amnesty to those who break the law, I believe it is important
to hold the administration to its word when enacting a comprehensive
reform bill.
My amendment limits the number of illegal aliens who can be granted
amnesty under the bill. This limit will in turn limit the potential for
fraudulent adjustments of status. It would also say if there were more
claiming for green cards under amnesty than projected, and they met all
the qualifications, they would get those green cards, but the future
flow numbers would be reduced to cover that. Unlike the bill as
written, my amendment would allow for a controlled increase in legal
migration by placing a cap on the number of green cards that can be
issued under the bill's other provisions. The fact is, we cannot admit
everyone who wants to come to our country. Unlimited immigration will
put a strain on finite resources. Therefore, in addition to properly
enforcing our laws and securing our borders, we must put reasonable
limits on the number of people who can enter permanently.
Under my amendment, future immigration will be increased by--hold
your hat--80 percent, but not as much as the current bill allows, 300
to 500 percent. Eighty percent is too high. We haven't had the evidence
to justify that, but I am saying, let's put this up for a vote so when
this bill goes through here, we will at least know what the top level
is.
This amendment is sensible and responsible. I ask my colleagues to
vote for it. Later, I hope to have the opportunity in the debate--I see
others, and I won't utilize any more time--to talk in more detail about
the earned-income tax credit amendment, the need to reform in a
significant way the unprincipled chain migration provisions of the
bill, and the H-2C green cards future flow cap for H-2C green cards to
be issued.
I thank my colleagues for their time. I urge each one of us to spend
some serious time in analyzing the impact of this hugely important
piece of legislation that the American people care about, and
rightfully so. It is our responsibility to get it right. We don't want
to be back here, as Senator Grassley has done today, and say we have
made a mistake in 2006.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority whip.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________