[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 82 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6254-S6257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, over the coming week the Senate has a 
historic opportunity to move forward with tough, smart, and fair 
comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, that ensures 
our economy continues to thrive, that protects American workers, and 
that at the same time undoes the process of committing millions of 
people to languish in the darkness and be exploited, or we can choose 
to abdicate our responsibilities and tacitly maintain the status quo of 
failed laws and a broken immigration system that is weak enforcement, 
that leaves our borders and our citizens unsecured and at the same time 
permits human exploitation to continue.
  As a group, several Senators, including myself, have been meeting and 
negotiating on comprehensive immigration reform over the past couple of 
months. I appreciate the President making Secretary Chertoff and 
Secretary Gutierrez available to try to reach an agreement that would 
do those things.
  I have come, during the course of that process with other colleagues, 
to a better understanding of my colleagues and their thoughts on this 
issue through the many hours we have spent talking together about 
solving the immigration problems, though I have not always agreed with 
them. I would like to believe our discussions were serious, thorough, 
and in good faith. At times they were productive, at other times they 
hit obstacles, but when one considers the enormity of the task at hand, 
along with what is at stake, one would have to be naive in thinking 
this would be an easy process.
  One thing we know for sure is that beginning next week, if cloture is 
invoked, an immigrating bill, in some form, will be considered on the 
floor of the Senate. I sincerely appreciate the commitment in regard to 
the time spent and the thought invested on this issue from all sides 
involved. The amount of work that has been put into this effort 
represents the interest level, not to mention the stakes.
  I will say, however, that in large part, part of the problem in 
getting agreement this year was where the administration started off in 
their proposal, which acted as a marker in these negotiations. From the 
minute I saw that proposal, it was clear to me we were no longer where 
we were last year on this issue.
  Last year, we passed a bipartisan bill, one that a majority of 
Americans could get behind. It was a historic effort that joined 23 
Republicans with 39 Democrats to address an issue of urgent national 
importance. The bill is the basis of what Majority Leader Reid has 
scheduled a cloture vote for next Monday afternoon. I do hope we will 
be able to get a vote to be able to continue to proceed. I appreciate 
the majority leader making this issue a priority, having given us 2 
months of lead time, telling us a very significant part of the Senate's 
calendar was being reserved for this debate. I appreciate his 
leadership in that regard.
  However, unfortunately, the administration, along with several of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, decided to radically alter 
their views and began the process this year with a far more 
impractical, in my mind, far more partisan proposal. Evidently, the 
White House convinced itself that it must have the support of some 
Republican Senators who opposed and worked to defeat last year's bill 
in order to pass something this year. Therefore, the White House has 
proposed an immigration reform plan that is far to the right of the 
Senate's passed bill of a year ago.
  Let me tell you what I believe the principles should be as to how the 
Senate should guide itself as it debates next week. I believe any 
immigration reform we pass must be tough in terms of the security of 
our country, it must be fair, it must be workable, it must be 
comprehensive in nature; that preserves, among other things, family 
values, keeps us safe as a country, rewards hard work and sacrifice, 
benefits all Americans, and promotes safe, legal, and orderly 
immigration. Now, I could not sign on to the agreement announced in 
principle earlier today because, in my mind, it does not meet the 
principles I just described.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to just state that very 
briefly in Spanish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. (Speaking in Spanish.)
  Mr. President, what I just said is I could not sign on to the 
agreement announced in principle because it tears families apart, and 
it says to many that they are only good enough to work here but not 
good enough to stay. Depending upon the category of individuals, it 
levies rather high penalties and fines, and it does not provide the 
confidentiality or judicial review necessary to bring those people who 
are undocumented in the country out of the shadows and into the light.
  Now, I have serious concerns about the workability and the fairness 
of the

[[Page S6255]]

agreement announced earlier because, first and foremost, it tears at 
the fabric of family reunification by limiting and eliminating the 
ability of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to petition for 
their children, their parents, and siblings to join them in this 
country.

  I took it very much to heart when President Bush said family values 
don't stop at the Rio Grande, that we all share those family values. 
Yet here we are with a piece of legislation which I gather is largely 
supported by the White House which undermines the very essence of that. 
Even under a new point structure that is envisioned under this bill, it 
seems to me the essence of family could get much more weighty within 
the context of a whole new process of how we are going to move our 
immigration system forward. Family is a critical value--I thought--in 
our country.
  It calls for a truly temporary and, I am concerned, potentially 
Bracero-style worker program that labor ultimately will not support and 
that could repeat the same problem all over, having us face this 
challenge in the years ahead by the way it is devised.
  It does not have confidentiality and judicial review, at least not of 
the standard I have seen to date; it is still one of those floating 
things out there. The reality is, if we want people to come out of the 
shadows into the light, to know who is here to pursue the American 
dream versus who is here to destroy it, then we need to be able to have 
those individuals understand that they will, in fact, and should come 
forth so that, in fact, they can go through the process envisioned by 
the framework agreement but that they will have confidentiality and 
judicial review in the process. Without addressing those issues, the 
system that would be created under the proposal would do little to fix 
our broken immigration system in the long term.
  Now, I support fines for those who have broken the law. But the fines 
that are proposed are prohibitive, and they make a pathway to 
legalization a path in name only. A family of four would have to pay 
$10,000 in fines and fees, which is more than last year's bill even 
after it was amended twice on the floor to increase those fines. That 
does not even include the cost of their trip to ``touch back'' when 
they seek to become a permanent resident. Unable to pay these fines and 
fees, some of the undocumented workers will be unable to come out of 
the shadows and into the light of American's progress and promise.
  Giving people the opportunity to come out of the shadows is an 
essential and necessary component of immigration reform because it will 
allow us to recognize who is here to seek the American dream versus who 
is here to destroy it through criminal or terrorist acts such as those 
which were recently almost carried out at Fort Dix in my home State of 
New Jersey.
  If we had the right set of standards, which I envision us having in 
our bill, and people would come forward, we would have caught those 
individuals by the background checks we would have conducted. But for 
those people to come forth, obviously, there has to be some sense that 
in fact there is a real opportunity; otherwise, no one will come 
forward.
  They also propose virtually doing away with provision for family 
reunification which has been the bedrock of our immigration policy 
throughout our history. This idea not only changes the spirit of our 
immigration policy, it also emphasizes the family structure. If this 
system had been in place when my mother and father attempted to come to 
this country, they certainly would not have qualified.
  As I have listened to the stories of so many of our fellow colleagues 
in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, I know many of their 
parents would never have qualified to come to this country. I would 
like to think that they made, and continue to make, some very 
significant contributions to our Nation. It seems to me a new paradigm 
could have been structured where family values and reunification have 
more of a fighting chance than under the framework agreement.
  As for the temporary worker program, we are inviting in temporary 
workers but, of course, we expect them to leave. Yes, temporary is 
temporary, and we are going to rotate them through, but how we do that 
and what pathway at the end of the day we might provide for saying you 
are human capital is incredibly important to this country. As if you 
perform enough of it, there may be an opportunity for you to adjust 
your status. But the way that the framework document envisions, it can 
simply create another undocumented workforce. It also sends the message 
that there are some people good enough to work here but not good enough 
to stay here; there are others good enough to work here and to stay 
here. If one didn't know what year it was, one might think we were 
discussing the National Origins Act of 1924. These and other problems 
with the proposed deal have to be improved to be able to support the 
type of reform that will meet the principles I have outlined.
  Generally speaking, it seems to me we have taken a radical departure 
from what we were able to collectively achieve last year. We need to 
take a hard look at it as we open the debate next week. For the sake of 
much needed reform, many Democrats, including myself, showed a 
willingness, even more than I would have envisioned, to make strides 
toward the White House's proposal. Even so there are certain issues 
where too much bend ultimately creates an impractical and ineffective 
immigration system.
  Unfortunately, that is what I believe will occur under the agreement 
announced earlier this afternoon.
  I, for one, cannot settle for something that isn't sufficiently 
responsible in terms of meeting these values--security of the country, 
making sure we deal with our economy in a way that doesn't depress 
wages but at the same time realizes certain economic sectors need help 
and preserves family values, and at the same time makes sure we end the 
exploitation that often takes place when those people are languishing 
in the darkness. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it does have to be 
fair, humane, and practical.
  Part of the magic of our Constitution is that it eventually allows 
the better parts of our nature to prevail. The better part of our 
national character is found in the strength we have achieved through 
our diversity. But that better nature must be fought for and fostered; 
in my mind, one of the greatest parts of America's experiment that has 
made it the great country that it is. I look forward to leading efforts 
on the floor of the Senate that will strengthen our security, protect 
American workers, deal with the necessities of our economy, while at 
the same time upholding the promise and the value of the American story 
that we hold so dear. We need to improve the framework document that 
has been announced through the legislative process next week. This is 
too important an issue to allow partisan politics to play a role. It is 
too important an issue to only be concerned about appeasing a 
relatively small part of a political base that is unrepresentative of 
the American public at large.
  We must come together not as Democrats and Republicans, or liberals 
and conservatives, but as statesmen and, in doing so, honor the 
traditions of the Senate as a body that values reasoning, honest 
debate, and compromise over sound bites, talking points, fear, and 
smear tactics.
  I know in my heart this is possible. I pray that it is practical and 
that we can end up with a bill next week that does these things: 
secures our country in a meaningful way and at the same time makes sure 
that we can preserve the economic interests of our country in all of 
the different aspects of our economy; that can say that the promise of 
family values we hold so dear and that has been at the core for over 
four decades of our immigration system can continue to be a reality; 
that we can end the human exploitation of people within our country, 
and in doing so, we actually make our country safer, more secure, and 
more robust in its economy. That is where I hope to lead efforts on the 
Senate floor next week.

  I appreciate the work that has been done by the Senators who have 
agreed to the framework agreement. I just believe it falls too short in 
some of the key principles for me to be supportive.
  I am looking forward to a bill on which we can join together and say: 
We did the best for the Nation. We did what is humanely right. We did 
what is right for the Nation in terms of its security and its economy, 
and we have

[[Page S6256]]

preserved the very essence of what this Nation has been about.
  From my home State of New Jersey, which was a gateway to millions of 
people across this country, particularly during the period of Ellis 
Island, we can almost touch Lady Liberty. Ellis Island is a short 
bridge walk across. The reality is that because of those people who 
have contributed so dramatically to our country, we all have a 
relationship to immigration--whether you can trace your history to the 
Mayflower and the voyage of that first opportunity, whether you are 
part of the Daughters of the American Revolution, whether you came with 
the millions in the European experience that crossed a great ocean 
through Ellis Island and then throughout our country, whether you came, 
as my parents did, in search of freedom, the reality is, we all have a 
connection. Let's honor that connection in a way that meets these 
values. Let' meet that challenge.
  I hope we can do so next week as the Senate convenes on this historic 
debate. I look forward to that opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wanted to have an opportunity to speak 
for a moment on this very timely issue of immigration. I heard my 
colleague from New Jersey speaking. I know how hard he has worked with 
us to try to achieve a solution to this very difficult problem the 
country has faced for now over 20 years. I am disappointed that what we 
did fell short of his hopes. I thought I would take a moment and 
respond to some of his comments, but also in the hopes of inviting him 
back into the process where his support would be so welcome and so 
vital.
  First, I should say there is nothing easy about this issue. There is 
nothing easy about the solution that we crafted, nor does it claim any 
sort of perfection associated with it because it is an imperfect bill. 
But it is a compromise. So what it implies by a compromise is that 
there are some things in it that I wholeheartedly support. There are 
some things that I might have liked to have seen differently. At the 
end of the day, that is how legislation is made. That is how it 
happens. We all give a little, and we end up someplace where we can 
move the country forward and provide the country with a way to resolve 
this very difficult issue that we call immigration.
  One of the notions I would appreciate dispelling is the fact that 
this is a White House bill. It is not. This is just as much a Senator 
Kennedy bill as it is a Senator Kyl bill, and a Senator Martinez bill 
as it is a Senator Salazar bill. I could name others: Senator Graham, 
Senator McCain, Senator Isakson. This bill has a great deal of balance 
because it not only enforces our borders first and foremost, which is 
what all Americans want at a time when our shores are threatened by 
potential terrorists, but it, secondly, does not do any of the other 
things that will be done in the bill until certain triggers are met, 
those triggers to have been in place as far as border security is 
concerned, the hiring of border agents, building the fencing, building 
of other physical and electronic barriers.
  Then we move into another phase which is to provide a tamper-proof 
ID. This will ensure that those who are working will work legally. It 
then moves into other areas such as a guest worker program. This is a 
guest worker program which is a temporary worker program. It is not 
intended as a vehicle to immigration. It is to provide the labor that 
America needs in certain places and also to provide a good-paying job 
to certain people in other parts of the world who want to work here, 
but with a clear understanding before ever coming that they are coming 
to work for a limited period of time, much as a student visa holder 
comes for 2 years to go to school, coming for 2 years to go to work. 
Then they go home. They can renew that visa a couple of times.
  Then a number of them will, if they acquire certain prerequisites, 
apply for permanent status here. Obviously, if they learned English, 
that would help them. If they learn a trade, that would help them. If 
their employer says they are a good worker, that would help them. That 
will be the basis for future immigration.
  There still is a family component to immigration. Husband, wife, 
children, can come, grandparents--40,000 a year of parents can come. 
What we are going to do is change the paradigm to one where more merit 
is included in the equation. There will be a point system. Family will 
often be a tiebreaker. That will be maintained. But the paradigm of 
immigration will shift to a different one. It will then give the 12 
million people who are here today living in the shadows an opportunity 
to come out of the shadows.
  I don't know how anyone can overlook the significance of that act, 
the fact that this country of immigrants and this country of laws will 
be generous enough to say to those 12 million that are here, having 
come illegally to our country but who have worked, as long as they pay 
fines, as long as they obey the law and have not gotten in trouble, and 
as long as they are willing to learn the English language, they can 
have a path forward to stay here and continue to work. If they go back 
to their home country, they also can apply for permanent residence and 
get in back of the line as any fairness would dictate.
  Fines, of course there will be fines. They can be paid over a period 
of years. They are not exorbitant, and they are only to the head of 
household. In this bill is the DREAM Act, an incredible achievement for 
the dream of education. The 12 million people living in the shadows in 
this country today find oftentimes their future dreams of a college 
education truncated by the inability to pay the tuition and the out-of-
State fees. The DREAM Act is in this bill. That is an important 
consideration.
  Part of this bill is going to take care of the agricultural needs of 
the country which is significant. I know in Florida, whether it is 
agricultural or hotel workers, whether it is theme park workers, in the 
tourism industry we desperately need workers. There are not enough 
there today. So the temporary worker program will help our economy 
while it helps people to have a good and decent job.
  I think there are some things here that are tremendously positive. It 
is a very exciting day, and I am delighted to be a part of the 
compromise. Obviously, there will be politics all over the place. The 
right and the left will be criticizing many of us for having taken what 
I think is a very strong bipartisan step forward.
  This is a coalition of many Senators working to pull something 
together that has been difficult, that is never going to be easy to do. 
I look forward to the debate in the Senate next week as we try to craft 
a solution for America going forward.
  I thank the President for his leadership on this issue, and Secretary 
Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez, who have been here countless hours, 
and my other colleagues who have been in the room--Senator Menendez, 
who was finding it difficult to support the bill today but who has been 
there time and time again--and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who 
has tried, also, and may not be completely satisfied, but they have 
been in the very dynamics of seeing good, dedicated servants, such as 
these two Senators who are finding it difficult. We see the difficulty 
of this bill.
  What I would hope is that a good nucleus of us will pull together, 
will come together. My hope is Senators Cornyn and Salazar and 
Menendez, and many others, will find it possible to support this bill 
as we go into the debate next week. There will be opportunities to 
offer amendments. There may be ways of making it better. There could 
also be ways to make it a lot worse. My hope is we can hang together on 
this nucleus of a compromise that will make America stronger, that will 
give some charity to people who are here, while at the same time giving 
America the assurance that our borders are going to be secured.
  It is not perfect. It is the best solution we could find today 
working together in good faith, in a bipartisan way. I hope the Senate 
will pass it. I hope it moves swiftly through the House, and we get it 
to the President's desk as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S6257]]



                          ____________________