[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5108-S5110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to follow up on the comments of my 
friend from Missouri as he leaves the Chamber and just to acknowledge 
and to second his comments. He said we are indebted to those who work 
so hard to try to piece together this compromise legislation, and I 
agree. We will attack a lot of difficult issues this year--we already 
have--and I think few of them are more difficult than the one that we 
have been working with this week, last week, last month, and we will 
probably be dealing with in the months to come to try to hammer out a 
final bill to send to the President for his consideration.
  Let me just make a couple of observations. First of all, let me say I 
am

[[Page S5109]]

told that last week some 10,000 people came across our borders 
illegally. We understand that roughly 10,000 will come across our 
borders illegally this week. Roughly another 10,000 will enter this 
country illegally next week. Some people have suggested amnesty is the 
answer. I don't believe that it is.
  We have heard it said on this floor today, and I will say it again 
tonight, simply providing amnesty sends the wrong signal to a lot of 
folks. It sends the wrong signal to people who live south of our 
country who, if they come in illegally, eventually we will let stay. It 
also sends the wrong signal, in my view, to people who are waiting--in 
some cases for years--to become legal residents or citizens of this 
country and who, even though they have been trying to play by the 
rules, we let other folks come in ahead of them who have not played by 
the rules. I think that is wrong.
  What I think we need to do is to take an approach similar to that 
which we are taking here as we debate this legislation and amend this 
legislation and, I hope, improve on this legislation. We need a policy 
that is tough. We need an immigration policy that is smart. We need an 
immigration policy that is comprehensive.
  I agree with many of my colleagues, including my friend from Missouri 
who has just spoken. I believe it begins with tougher borders, tougher 
border security. We have seen an increase in the number of Border 
Patrol who man our borders along the border of the United States and 
Mexico. I am told we have seen between 1995 and 2005 a doubling of the 
number of Border Patrol who patrol that area. Meanwhile, between 2001 
and this year, we have seen a drop by almost a third of the folks who 
are apprehended coming into this country illegally. That makes no 
sense.
  I think in terms of being on the border, we may need more Border 
Patrol. We are certainly voting for more Border Patrol, and I think 
that is the right step. But it is also important that the folks to whom 
we assign these responsibilities do a better job of tightening the 
borders and apprehending those who attempt to come through illegally.
  The President proposed--and we have signed off on it--the deployment 
of National Guard troops along our border to work in conjunction with 
Border Patrol. I support that. As an old commander in chief of the 
Delaware National Guard for 8 years, I believe the National Guard can 
play a constructive role here.
  One idea that I think makes sense is sort of a synergistic approach. 
We have a number of Air National Guard units around the country that 
have for their aircraft that they work with, they have pilotless 
drones. And I could see using several squadrons of those pilotless 
drones along our border to supplement the Border Patrol, to make them 
more effective, to put into the air these aircraft that can detect the 
movement of individuals, of vehicles moving toward our border. They are 
effective in the daytime and at night with infrared technology. I think 
that is a smart use of our National Guard and provides the kind of 
synergy that I think we ought to be looking for in deploying along our 
border for maybe a 12-month period.
  I know some people are uncomfortable with the notion of building a 
fence along any portion of our border with Mexico. I have traveled to 
Israel and seen a fence being built throughout that country, the 
intention of which is to protect the Israelis from terrorists. And I 
know some people are offended by the construction of that fence. 
Personally, I am not. I am not offended by the notion of a fence along 
portions of our border with Mexico. I don't know that it makes sense, 
dollars and cents, to construct a fence along the entire 2,000-mile 
border of the United States and Mexico. But there may be stretches, 
several hundreds of miles, maybe 300, 400 miles where a fence is cost 
effective, or where a fence can complement and enhance the ability of 
our Border Patrol, the ability of our Guard units to provide the kind 
of balance and deterrence that we need.
  With respect to technology, technology can be a great help to us. 
Unmanned aircraft is just one example. Also, simply better 
identification that would be awarded to people when they come here 
legally, whether it is as a guest worker or on a more permanent working 
basis, to provide them with identification that is, as best we can make 
it, tamper-proof.
  I am reminded every time I go through the security checkpoints at 
airports, waiting to get through the checkpoints to get on a plane, I 
see people, usually crew members, who simply go to the front of the 
line. They go through quickly, and in many cases they have their own 
identification. Maybe they have biometrics. It may involve 
fingerprints, eyes, retinal scans. They can get through quickly.
  I read recently, I think it was in Business Week, of that kind of 
identification that may become available commercially to folks who are 
willing to put out $100 or so, maybe less than that, in order to get 
identification that is pretty much tamper-proof, that would really say 
that whoever possesses this identification is indeed the person they 
profess to be. That is the kind of technology I think we need.
  We need more detention beds. The idea that somebody shows up from 
Mexico, and we simply take them back to Mexico, that is fine. But if 
they happen to be from Guatemala or Honduras or Peru or Chile, we 
simply take them to a detention center. We have beds, we put them in 
that detention center to await an arraignment hearing. If we don't have 
beds, we say: Come back in a week or a month or two or three. We 
release them on their own recognizance, and we shouldn't be surprised 
that a lot of times they don't come back. I don't think we should 
expect them to come back.
  We need more detention beds, and rather than simply turning people 
loose, knowing that they are unlikely to show up, we ought to be--we 
ought to be--smarter than that. Part of the solution is more detention 
beds.
  Another aspect of a comprehensive law is to better enforce, to 
rigorously enforce the laws that we have on the books and to strengthen 
them with respect to employers who knowingly hire folks who are here 
illegally. If you look at the number of prosecutions over the last half 
dozen or so years, it is pitiful in terms of the employers we know are 
doing something illegal, that they are not doing the right work in 
making sure that the folks who are working for them are here lawfully. 
The employers aren't doing it, and, frankly, we haven't been doing much 
about it. We need to be tougher on that. This bill calls for that. But 
the best laws, the toughest penalties on the books are no better than 
the enforcement. In fact, we need much better enforcement.
  The President has been a big advocate of a guest worker program. I 
think he was calling for 400,000 guest workers this year, next year, 
the year after that. I think we have significantly scaled back the 
scope of that guest worker program. I think it is acceptable that it be 
a small portion of a comprehensive bill, but not as the President 
earlier suggested as really the centerpiece.
  Let me say a word or two about the 10 million or 12 million people 
who are here illegally, what to do with them. I know we have some who 
say just send them all back, line them up, put them on a bus or an 
airplane and send them back where they came from. I don't understand 
how practical that is. I understand the sentiment some feel in wanting 
to do that. What we are suggesting in this bill is we take an approach 
for people who have been here illegally, violated our laws, done so 
repeatedly, either committed a felony or multiple misdemeanors--that is 
it. They don't have a chance to stay here, no chance to be on a 
probationary period for 6 years or six decades and work their way 
toward citizenship. That is how it should be.

  On the other hand, folks who have been here for 5 years or more, they 
worked, essentially they abided by the laws as a citizen here, they 
paid taxes--if those people are willing to serve an additional 
probationary period for 6 years or more, continue to work, continue to 
pay taxes, stay out of trouble with the law, to learn English, to pay a 
substantial fine--and frankly the size of that fine continues to grow; 
we grew it further tonight to be somewhere in excess of $3,000--folks 
who are willing to abide by the conditions of that kind of probation 
and do so religiously, year after year for half a dozen years or more, 
they have a chance to work their way toward citizenship.
  Similarly, for those who have been here from 2 to 5 years, they would 
have a chance if they are willing to go back

[[Page S5110]]

and come into this country through a couple of dozen entry points along 
the border, to get valid identification so we know who they are and we 
know they are here, that they, too, after a period of time would have a 
chance to enter the same kind of 6-year probationary period, abide by 
the law, pay taxes, work, pay a fine, learn English--those kinds of 
things. If they do those things, they, too, would have a chance to work 
toward citizenship.
  For people who have been here less than 2 years or people who 
violated our laws, violated our laws repeatedly, they are out of luck. 
They will go back to where they came from, and ultimately, if they have 
not been lawbreakers, they would have a chance to reapply. I don't 
think their chances of getting back here any time soon would be good.
  The last thing, I say it is not in this bill and I think it is 
unfortunate that it is not--they talked about it in our caucus, and 
there has been some serious discussion about whether we ought to raise 
the minimum wage in our country. We raised the minimum wage when I was 
Governor. I think 20 or so States have done so, ahead of the Nation. It 
has been 20 years or more since we raised it. To the extent we actually 
pay people a better wage in this country, we encourage more Americans 
to do these jobs which allegedly Americans will not do, which only 
foreigners are willing to do. Unfortunately, that increase in the 
minimum wage is not going to be part of this bill. I think that is 
probably a mistake, but it is what it is.
  In closing, at least with respect to immigration tonight, I again 
want to say it is not good when 10,000 people are coming across our 
borders last week, this week, next week. Amnesty is not the answer. I 
believe the answer is legislation that is tough, that is smart, that is 
comprehensive, that begins with a heavy focus on making our borders 
more secure, enforcing the laws that are supposed to be in effect with 
respect to employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, trying to make 
sure the identification folks bring to this country to demonstrate to 
employers--that we better ensure it is tamper-proof and we use 
technology to do that sort of thing.
  There are a couple of outcomes that could come out of our work here. 
We are going to take up this bill tomorrow with some final amendments, 
and we will vote on whether to pass it and to go to conference with the 
House, which has a somewhat different bill, as we know. It is not a 
comprehensive bill but a bill not without some virtue.
  I think we will have a chance to pass this bill tomorrow and go to 
conference. There are some people saying today in our own cloakroom 
there is no way we are ever going to get a compromise out of a 
conference with the House. We may pass this bill, but that will be 
pretty much the end of it. They may be right. I hope they are wrong.
  Maybe among the outcomes here, maybe the worst would be to pass a bad 
bill and send the President a bad bill he might sign. That would be a 
mistake.
  Almost as great a mistake as that would be, I believe, would be to do 
nothing and to leave here this year having not addressed our problems 
and to know that people are going to continue to stream into this 
country illegally. In most cases, they are just folks who want to come 
to work. In some cases, they are people who are criminals. Maybe in 
some cases, they are people who would come here as terrorists. That is 
just unacceptable.
  I am, frankly, proud of the Senate and the work we have done. I think 
in a way the center has sort of come together and held. The center has 
held with respect to this bill and sort of rejecting extreme views on 
either side. I find that encouraging.
  I don't have to say complimentary things about the President. I think 
in this case, in this instance, he has shown leadership and willingness 
to use some of that political capital he earned back in 2004 and I 
think to put it to pretty good use.

                          ____________________