Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6422-S6430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1348, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1348) to provide for comprehensive immigration
reform and for other purposes.

Pending:

Reid (for Kennedy/Specter) amendment No. 1150, in the
nature of a substitute.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, is recognized for up to 2 hours.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair for recognition and
want to continue the discussion on the very important piece of
legislation that is now before the Senate.
I do believe the immigration system is comprehensively broken. I have
said for some time we need a comprehensive solution to it, to
comprehensively reform it, but to reform it in a way that will actually
work, that will do it with principles we can adhere to in the future,
that will move us from a lawless system of immigration.
Most people may not know but 1.1 million people are arrested each
year entering our country illegally. Think about the cost and personnel
involved in processing that many people. It is a system that is not
working. We know many people are getting by the border and not being
apprehended.
It rightly causes the American people to question how serious we are
in Congress when we say we want to do something about it. They believe
we should do something about it. We say we want to do something about
it, but eventually, as time goes along, for one reason or another,
little ever seems to occur that actually works.
I have stated more than once we can pass a lot of legislation in this
Senate dealing with immigration, but if you offer something that will
actually work, to actually fix the problem, to actually be effective,
we always have much wailing and crying and gnashing of teeth, and
usually those things do not become law.
Last year, I was very critical of the bill that was offered. I said
it was fatally flawed. I said it should be withdrawn and urged my
colleagues that if we drafted a bill for this session of Congress it
should not be based on last year's fatally flawed bill but that we
should start over and create a system that would create a genuine
temporary worker program, not the flawed program that was there last
year, that would move us toward a Canadian-based system where people
all over the world could apply to our country, and they would be
selected based on their merits and the skills and abilities they bring
that would be valuable to our country.
I noted that we needed, of course, effective border enforcement as
well as workplace enforcement, and we ought not to create a system that
gives someone who enters our country illegally every single benefit we
give to those who come to the country legally. The legal people do
deserve to be treated in a different way than those who come illegally.
Now, I know as a matter of compassion and practicality we have to
wrestle with the 12 million people here. I never doubted that. Nobody
doubts that. How we deal with it, though, is a matter that will
determine what policies we, as a nation, adhere to. It will send a
signal to people all over the world that we are actually going to
insist that we have a legal system of immigration and we intend to
enforce it.
It is one thing to have a law, but if you are not prepared to enforce
it and go through the process that is oftentimes painful to catch
someone who violated the law and then have them deported--oftentimes
that is a painful process--you either are going to do that or we might
as well admit here we have no intention of enforcing any laws.
I do not think that is what we do. Almost every Senator has stated
they want a lawful system of immigration, Republicans and Democrats. I
do not think we have a problem. I would say yesterday and last week I
had a very great concern that a plan was afoot to get cloture on the
bill yesterday. The old bill, which I steadfastly believe is not an
effective piece of legislation, would then be substituted by a new
piece of legislation. That happened last night. It is approximately 300
pages of fine print and maybe 1,000 pages of the kind of legislative
bill language we normally use here. It is one of the largest pieces of
legislation to be introduced since I have been in the Senate. I think
the Presiding Officer, Senator Landrieu, might remember some of the
omnibus bills may have been that big, but I cannot remember a single
piece of legislation since I have been in the Senate that would be 800
to 1,000 pages.
So the scheme or the plan was to try to move that through this week.
I am

[[Page S6423]]

glad Senator Harry Reid, a man whom I enjoy working with, did agree
last night he would not try to move this bill through this week, that
we would be able to talk about it this week, that we would be in recess
for Memorial Day, and the next week after that we would have another
full week of discussions. I think we need more than that.
Madam President, I see my colleague Senator Inhofe is in the Chamber.
I say to the Senator, I know he has a tight schedule, and when he is
ready to make his remarks, I would be pleased to yield to him.
We are on the track now to have a full week of discussion. But it
would be unfortunate, indeed, if my colleagues in the Senate, if the
American people, were not to utilize that time to ask seriously what it
is we are about in this ``grand compromise'' that has been proposed for
us.
I think there is a possibility that good legislation could yet come
out of this that would be worthy of passing. I am aware, as so many of
us are, of the language from the supporters of this compromise that,
well, they say: Nothing is perfect. The perfect is the enemy of the
good. There are a lot of things in the bill I don't like. I think there
are things that could be better, and that sort of thing, but I am for
it.
I would ask why it is we do not take out those things that are not
good? Why it is we do not create a bill we can be proud of and that
eliminates weaknesses and problems? Because like jumping across a 10-
foot ravine, jumping 9 feet is not good enough. If you jump 9 feet, you
still fall to your doom. So let's create a system that will work. Many
of the defects are of such a nature that could actually undermine the
very principles that have been stated as the basis for this compromise.
If we cannot accomplish those principles, why do it?
There are some good things in the bill and some things I am very
troubled with. We will talk about them more as we go along.
Madam President, I see the Senator from Oklahoma. We serve together
on the Armed Services Committee and I admire him greatly. He cares
about our soldiers and has spent more time in Iraq than any Member of
the House or the Senate, I suppose, meeting with our soldiers and
trying to figure out the best way to handle our efforts there. I admire
him greatly, Senator Jim Inhofe.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I thank the Senator very much for the
time.

Iraq

Madam President, before getting into this bill, I want to comment
that last week when I was there--it was my 14th time to be in the AOR
of the Middle East and where the conflict is--the progress that is
being made there is incredible. I sat here and I heard a couple
Senators talk about how bad things were there and that we are losing
and all this.
This is the first time--I remember a year ago in Ramadi they actually
declared Ramadi was going to be the al-Qaida capital of the Middle East
or the terrorist capital of the Middle East. Right now, it is
completely changed. IEDs are down 81 percent. Attacks are down 74
percent. Then, next door at Fallujah, they are now totally under the
security of the Iraqi security forces.
So all these good things are happening there. I wish Members of this
Senate would go over there and see for themselves instead of trying to
use it politically to advance their careers. You are doing a great
disservice to our troops over there.
But that is not why I am here in the Chamber.
I appreciate the comments that have been made by the Senator from
Alabama. I agree with everything he has said. My concern is at 2 a.m.
on Saturday morning is when all this came up. We did not have any way
of knowing exactly what was in it. Yet I am concerned about all sorts
of things, such as how do you make a Z visa work.
But the reason I want to have a little time right now is because I do
have an amendment. It is my understanding I will be able to call up
this amendment for consideration after the Senator from North Dakota
has his up, and that will be later this afternoon.
My amendment is the English amendment. Those Members on the floor can
remember a year ago I got an amendment adopted that made English the
national language for the United States of America. It passed by a vote
of 62 to 35. There are some extremist groups that opposed it and, quite
frankly, some of the liberal Members of the Senate were afraid to vote
for it without having a backup where they could negate it. This is what
happened. They voted for my amendment.
The amendment is very simple. It says there is not an entitlement for
language, other than the English language, to be given to people who
want Government services. Very simple. That is the same way over 50
other countries, including Ghana in West Africa, have it.
The Presiding Officer knows I have spent a lot of time in Africa on
some of the same programs she has been involved with, and most of the
countries in sub-Saharan Africa--the ones that speak English--all have
English as their national language. Thirty states have it as their
national language, but not we in the United States of America.
There is going to be an effort on my part to get this in the bill,
and I am going to use the same text I had last time.
It is interesting when you hear different Presidents talk about this
issue. In 1999, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton
said:

Our new immigrants must be part of our one America . . .
that means learning English.

Everyone said ``hooray,'' and then he came along with an executive
order right after that which did away with that statement completely.
President Bush said:

The key to unlocking the full promise of America is the
ability to speak English.

We know how many States have adopted this. The polling is incredible.
A 2006 Zogby poll reported 84 percent of Americans--I have polls
showing up to 91 percent--said English should be the national language.
And 77 percent of Hispanics polled by that Zogby poll said the same
thing. This poll was in 2006, only a year ago, demonstrating how many
Americans believe English should be our national language. Establishing
English as a national language should not be viewed as a partisan
issue. It is widely supported throughout the country.
In this Congress, in this immigration debate, I am again offering my
amendment to make English the national language. My amendment would
accomplish three things. No. 1, it would establish English as the
national language of the United States of America. No. 2, it would
establish that the official business of the Federal Government should
be conducted in English, and eliminates all of the entitlements people
would have for language other than English. Now, it does respect
current law. For example, we have the Court Interpreters Act. The Court
Interpreters Act is necessary to support the sixth amendment, the right
to counsel, and we are making sure this doesn't affect that in a
negative way.

So we create no restriction of providing materials of other languages
and allow certain exceptions where it is specifically mandated by
statute. We made that very clear.
My amendment does not prohibit the use of other languages. However,
my amendment states:

There is no entitlement to individuals that Federal
agencies must act, communicate, perform, or provide services
or materials in any language other than English.

So it is hypocritical that the immigration legislation we are
considering now contains a section generally recognizing the importance
of English. However, this section 702 of this immigration legislation
does not establish English as a national language.
Now, we had this debate. We were on the Senate floor and debating
this about a year ago right now, and people were hesitant to vote
against it. We had every kind of excuse in the world. They came
trotting in here with State flags that had foreign languages on them
saying: We would have to do away with all of these State flags.
It has nothing to do with that. We are talking about entitlements.
We had one Member come in and say: You are going to be responsible
for the deaths of Hispanics.
I said: Explain that.
This Member on the Senate floor, right down here, said: Well, you
know, they have some bad currents down in

[[Page S6424]]

the Potomac, and we have ``no swimming'' signs that are written in
Spanish. If you don't have those, then people are going to drown.
This has nothing to do with that. You can put up any kind of sign you
want that is in the best public interest.
We had one Member come down and say: You would never be able to speak
in Spanish on the floor of the Senate.
Well, that has nothing to do with it. I have made a few speeches in
Spanish, and there is a reason for it which I will not go into now. But
these are things that people say are problems and things that just
don't hold up.
Now, I think it should be pointed out--because a very good friend of
mine was on a television station this morning, and I know this
individual would not have said what he said if he were aware of the
truth, but let me just bring this out. A year ago, when I had my
amendment, which would do essentially what the amendment will do if it
is passed today, Senator Salazar from Colorado came up with an
amendment right afterwards. In fact, we voted on it in a matter of
minutes after we voted on mine, 62 to 35, and his passed also. All his
did was offer language that is totally different from mine.
For example, I am going to read his. It didn't say English is the
national language, it says it is a common language.

Preserving and Enhancing the Role of the English Language:
The Government of the United States shall preserve and
enhance the role of English as the language of the United
States.

But listen to this:

Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights
under the laws of the United States relevant to services or
materials provided by the Government of the United States in
any language other than English.

There it is, folks: ``Nothing herein shall diminish or expand . . .''
In other words, it is going to continue to be the same.
Now, there are a lot of people out there who are going to be looking
at this amendment. Americans are clamoring to have this done. They
don't understand why we don't do this. I don't understand it either.
But this language is found in the current immigration bill.
Down here under ``definition'' in section 702, which was in the
language that was put in 2 minutes after my vote took place a year ago,
it says:

For the purposes of this section, law is defined as
including provisions of the United States Constitution, the
United States Code, controlling judicial decisions,
regulations, and Presidential Executive Orders.

Now, this is a very significant one because what you hear about quite
often is President Clinton's Executive Order No. 13166 entitlement,
which offers entitlement to translation in any language of your choice,
anyone who receives any Federal funds. Well, that completely opens the
door for every possible language. A lot of people think we are only
talking about Spanish. That is not correct. That Executive order refers
to any language at all. This bill we are considering that I will oppose
has language in there that would codify that Executive Order No. 13166,
and I think it is one that people have to understand.
The Senator from Alabama is not back, so I will take a little bit
more time. I am going to read the language now that is actually in the
amendment which says English shall be the national language of the
Government of the United States: The Government of the United States
shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language
of the United States of America, unless specifically provided by
statute.

Now, I use as an example the court interpreters law, existing law
right now. It says, unless specifically provided by statute, no person
has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United
States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate,
perform, or provide services or provide materials in any language other
than English. If an exception is made with respect to the use of a
language other than English, the exception does not create a legal
entitlement to additional services in that language or in any language
other than English.
Forms--it says:

If any form is issued by the Federal Government in any
language other than English, or such form is completed in a
language other than English, the English language version of
the form is the sole authority for all legal purposes.

Again, there is one sentence in there that says:

Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the use of language
other than English if it is codified into law.

That is what we use the Court Interpreters Act for, and a few others,
where there is a constitutional reason--in this case it is the sixth
amendment to the Constitution--for having that language in there.
So what I will do until the Senator from Alabama returns is mention a
few other things I think are significant. This is not a new issue. This
is an old issue, and the old issue goes back to many years ago, to
President Theodore Roosevelt in the 1900s:

Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn
English, but that he has got to learn it. He has got to
consider the interests of the United States or he should not
stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in
this country depend on his knowing English and observing
American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to
regard him only as an industrial asset.

Now, that was President Theodore Roosevelt in 1916. I could go
through--we have them all the way up, including Ronald Reagan and other
Presidents. Later on, I will go over the polling data. Later on, if we
have a chance to present this and debate this amendment, I am going to
go over all the polling data. You cannot find any polling data that
says less than 84 percent of the American people want to have English
as the national language.
So even LaRaza, an extremist, leftwing group, says they found in a
2004 poll that LaRaza did, 97 percent strongly--86 percent--97 percent
that is strongly or somewhat agreed that the ability to speak English
is important to succeed in this country. That is the extremist group.
In other words, if you want to be an attorney or a doctor instead of a
busboy, you need to learn the language.
Now, I see the Senator from Alabama is back, but let me just repeat
the one thing that I think is very important because so many of our own
Members--Republicans and Democrats--believe somehow this bill
positively addresses the problem or it makes English the national
language. I am going to go ahead and tell you that when they put
section 702 in instead of my language, section 701, all they said is
English is a common language in the United States. Big deal. But it
says in here:

Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights
under the laws of the United States relative to services or
materials provided by the Government of the United States in
any language other than English.

Well, there it is, I say to my friend from Alabama. Nothing in here
would diminish or expand. In other words, it is going to stay like it
is today. But then it goes on to say--and this is the critical thing--
all the criticism of President Clinton when he passed Executive Order
No. 13166, which was an entitlement for a translator in any language
you want other than English, or the language of your choice if you are
a recipient of Federal funds. So that definition, if we pass this
bill--which I don't think we are going to, and which I don't want to
for many other reasons--but if we pass it, we would say for the
purposes of this section of law, the law is defined as including
provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the United States Code,
controlling judicial decisions, regulation, and Presidential Executive
orders. In other words, we are codifying this very Executive Order that
so many people in America find so offensive.
So I think this is an opportunity to put this in. Quite frankly, I
think unless the bill would be dramatically changed, I still wouldn't
support the bill, but we need to have every opportunity we can, when we
are addressing problems with immigrants or legislation of this nature,
to make English the national language. Ninety percent of the American
people are for it, 77 percent of the Hispanics are for it, and I am for
it.
I thank my colleague very much for his time, I say to the Senator
from Alabama, who has done a great job.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Alabama is
recognized.

[[Page S6425]]

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe for sharing this
with us. I think he understands, and all of us need to understand, as
we continue the flow of immigration at a level we have not sustained
before in our history. Once or twice we have peaked at immigration
levels close to what we have today. Most of those immigrants, in fact,
or many of them, spoke English. Regardless of that, we are sustaining a
level of immigration that is unprecedented in American history.
People are coming from all over the world, and English is being
taught all over the world. What we need to understand is that it is
even more important now that we officially and systematically and
effectively emphasize that English is the unifying language because, as
you have greater and greater numbers of people who don't speak English
as a native language, encouraging, requiring, incentivizing English as
the national language is the glue that can hold us together and can
avoid cultural divisions that we might otherwise have.
I think the American people understand that, as the polling data of
Senator Inhofe showed. Hispanic voters, when they are told about this,
recognize it is critical for their children who are going--for them to
receive the greatest benefits of the American dream, to flourish in our
culture and our economy, that they be able to speak English. For some
reason, we went through a period--and hopefully we are coming out of
it--where we felt it necessary to try to communicate in foreign
languages to other people, therefore diminishing their incentive to
learn English and weakening our commitment as a nation that English
should be the unifying language.
I thank the Senator for raising this subject, and I believe it is
important.
I will just say one more thing. A lot of nations do have trouble
getting along. Oftentimes, it goes down language lines. We have even
seen our neighbors in Canada almost divide over French and English
portions of the country. They wanted to separate from one another, and
we see that around the world. So if we are to remain a nation of
immigrants, and we are going to do that, I think it may be even more
important today that we emphasize the unifying language of English than
we ever have before.
I think most people when they came here wanted their children to
learn English, and they did so. But we have a situation today that
could get away from us in terms of transmitting to them the benefits of
citizenship, the benefits of our economy because, if they can't
communicate, it won't be effective.
The bipartisan negotiations that were carried out in an attempt to
reach a good bill set forth some principles. Those principles seem to
be the ones that were leaked as part of a PowerPoint presentation that
the White House worked on. That presentation was made to me. I thought
it was pretty good. I thought it was a much better framework for
immigration than last year's bill. I said repeatedly in recent weeks
that we had a framework superior to last year's bill that could
actually lead us to something important.

Unfortunately, the four main principles that were so often talked
about--the trigger, a temporary worker program, the elimination of
chain migration, and the creation of a merit system and no amnesty for
the illegal alien population--are insufficiently effectuated by this
legislation. They have the appearance of doing those things and maybe
in a few areas improve over current law or last year's bill, but they
don't effectively carry it out. So I am worried about that situation.
I am worried that, yes, our supporters say: We have problems with the
bill, but overall it is good. If we have problems with the bill, let's
look at those problems, let's see if they can be fixed, and let's make
a better bill. Let's not pass a bill that we tell the American people
is going to fix the immigration problem in America when it has
loopholes and weaknesses that will not work and will not accomplish
what we are promising--what some are promising--will occur if it is
passed. I worry when people say they disagree with large portions of
the bill, yet they are for it.
Let's talk about some of the principles that were asserted.
Last year, when this bill was jammed through the Senate Judiciary
Committee, of which I am a member, I came up with the idea--actually,
it came to me in an interesting way. I realized, why, when I offer
amendments on enforcement and to spend more money on this or that item,
people would accept them in committee. If you offered an amendment that
would change policy--empower State and local law enforcement officers,
for example, to participate--you got a push back from other policy
matters, but they would just accept any amendment that would spend more
money on enforcement. You ask yourself: Why is that so? That is so
because they were not spending any money. We are the Judiciary
Committee, an authorization committee. We cannot appropriate a dime. So
we can authorize money for border patrol, we can authorize fencing, we
can authorize prison systems, we can authorize an entry-exit visa
system, but if nobody comes up with the money to pay for it, it never
becomes law. Do you see?
So I suggested on the question of amnesty that no amnesty be allowed
until we have a certification by the Secretary of Homeland Security
that the border was secure and that this would be a trigger. The
trigger for amnesty would be a certification that the border laws were
enforced. That was the philosophy behind the trigger amendment on which
Senator Isakson worked so hard on the floor. It was not adopted in
committee last year, and when we had a full debate on it, the people
who were supporting last year's fatally flawed bill said: Oh, this goes
to the core of the bill. We can't support this. It might be OK, but the
coalition that put this bill together won't support it. It will cause
it to fall apart. So they voted it down by a fairly close margin, but
voted it down.
So now we are told: OK, we need a trigger. So one of the principles
of this bill is to have a trigger in it. Let me show why I think there
are some weaknesses in that trigger and it is not as effective as it
needs to be. As a matter of fact, it is not very powerful at all. It
applies only to the new guest worker program, but all other amnesty
programs will begin immediately. In other words, the legalization
process, the Z visas that allow people to stay here, will be issued
before any of these steps are actually taken. See, we want to be sure
that steps are not just promised but are actually taken, paid for, and
implemented, because in 1986 what happened was amnesty was given--and
they did not deny calling it amnesty in 1986--amnesty was given on a
promise of enforcement, and they never funded the enforcement. They
just never did it. We had 3 million illegal people here in 1986, and we
have 12 million today. So Congresses and the Presidents since 1986 and
before 1986 have never taken these matters seriously and given them the
priority needed to be successful.
We have that weakness in the trigger which I mentioned. The
legalization process will occur before any of these items are required
to be funded and executed.
Secondly, the trigger only requires enforcement benchmarks already in
the works, almost accomplished. So it does not require anything new. It
does not require one critical thing, I believe, which is a U.S. visit
exit system. You come into the country and show your identification.
The new system we should have and proponents suggest is in this bill
would say you come in with your identification, you show it at the
border, you work. When your time is up, you are supposed to exit the
country. But there is no system to record whether anybody exits. This
was required to have been implemented by 2005. It has been put off and
put off. Why? Because it creates a system, I suggest, that would
actually work. It is a key component of an honest, effective border
control system. If a spouse comes to visit a temporary worker for 30
days, how do we know they will ever leave? Who is going to keep up with
this? Do people think agents are going out knocking on people's doors
to see if their visiting spouses are still here? That is not the way
the system is going to work. So an exit system is not part of a trigger
requirement.
The language we wanted and was in the Secure Fence Act that we passed
last year requires the Department of

[[Page S6426]]

Homeland Security to attain operational control of the border. That is
the fundamental principle of the trigger from the beginning. None
of that language is in this bill. It does not require the Secretary of
Homeland Security to certify operational control of the border. So we
don't have a very great trigger.

Also, it requires under the trigger 18,000 Border Patrol agents to be
employed--not that we hire new ones whom we plan to hire even above
that but only the 18,000 who mostly are already there now.
Last year, right before the election, we passed legislation that
requires the construction of 700 miles of fencing. Will that fence ever
get built? I suggest that my colleagues read the fine print. We see
already the fence is being undermined. There is no trigger requirement
that occurs. Only 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of vehicle
barriers are part of the trigger. These have been in the works and some
fencing already exists, and that should be there. But that leaves about
300 miles not part of the contingency, and we don't know if the money
will ever be there for this 300 miles which we authorized just last
fall. Do my colleagues follow me? Just because we authorized fencing
last fall does not mean it will ever be built. If you want to say that
is a shell game, I have to agree. It is done all the time around here.
It is particularly done on immigration matters.
Bed space: We currently have 27,500 detention beds. What does a
trigger require before the amnesty process can go forward? It requires
27,500, what we already have. But the bill, in a separate section of
this legislation, would require 20,000 additional beds to be built
because we need them. It is an essential part of gaining control of the
border. Mr. President, 20,000 is not that large a number in the scheme
of things, but it can get us to a tipping point where the border can be
brought under control. But that is not part of the trigger. There are
other matters in the trigger that are not available.
I will note this: If you want to be dubious about the intent of the
drafters of this legislation to follow through on some of the things
they promise, let me tell you how the bill words it. It is filled with
phrases such as ``subject to the availability of appropriations'' and
``authorized to be appropriated.'' Those words are used in the
legislation 38 times--``authorized to be appropriated.'' You can
authorize a fence in this legislation, but this is not an
appropriations bill. Unless the Congress comes along and funds it, it
will never be built. Worse than that, it has ``subject to the
availability of appropriations.'' That is a real suggestion by
somebody, I would argue, who never intends to see that section funded
appropriately. That was one of the principles.
I am disappointed in the trigger. We were told we would have a real
temporary worker program this year, one that would fit the needs of
businesses, and they do have needs, and the agriculture community, and
they do have needs, and we would create one that would actually work.
But I am afraid this one is set to fail. It is better than last year's
bill in a number of ways. Let me tell you how it is better, and that is
the good news.
Last year, the temporary worker program allowed an individual to come
to this country as a temporary worker for 3 years, and they could bring
their spouses and children with them. Then they could extend that 3
years another 3 years, another 3 years, another 3 years--I think
indefinitely. Mr. President, 3 years, 3 years, 3 years, as long as you
live, and your spouses and children can be here, and any children born
here would be American citizens at birth. The first year the person was
here, they could apply through their employer for a green card,
permanent legal residence, which would put them on the pathway to
citizenship within 5 years. That was a temporary guest worker program.
I say that to my colleagues because we need to be alert to the fact
that just because it says we have a trigger, just because we have a
temporary worker program, when you read the fine print, it may not be
what it appears to be. So that was a disaster. That wasn't a temporary
worker program at all. After a family has been here for 8, 10, 12
years, their children are in junior high school. Who is going to come
and get them and send them home? That is a program which had no chance
whatsoever. But the sponsors went around for months saying we have
created a temporary guest worker program. That was not so, and I am
glad eventually that came to be exposed for what it was.
This year's bill says, as part of the principles, that we would have
a temporary worker program where the temporary workers did not bring
families. That changes the dynamics dramatically because if they don't
bring families, they have an incentive to go home. If they bring their
families, their incentive is to put roots down and stay. It is not a
temporary worker program, in my view.
So how did it come out in real fine print? In fine print, what we
understand is it is not a 3-year program but a 2-year program; that 20
percent of the temporary workers can bring their families, and of the
remaining 80 percent, their families can visit up to 30 days. Well,
let's say that your spouse is pregnant and you are working here
temporarily. You could ask that spouse to come to America for a visit
and have good health care and have a child born who would have dual
citizenship, or maybe they would stay in the United States and the
child can be a citizen because of birthright citizenship. There are
some problems with this.

I am troubled by the 2-year situation and the way it works. You come
for 2 years, you would go home for 1 year; you come back for another 2
years, you would go home for a year; come back a third time for 2
years, and then you could never come back again.
What we have in the agriculture community is circularity, where
people come for 8, 10, 11 months a year, maybe, without their families,
and they work for a season, maybe 8 months, and go home. They are based
and their home is among their family and their kin in the town or city
or village they grew up in. They go to their church in their
neighborhood.
So that is the way that worked, and I was hoping, or thought we would
move in that direction. But, no, it looks like it is a 2-year deal,
where you can bring your spouse to visit for 30 days, and 20 percent
would be able to have their spouses with them the entire stay. They
have to post a small bond. But that is not a defining event, I think.
What about the numbers? When I first asked, as they moved the
PowerPoint presentation around, how many guest workers, temporary
workers was contemplated in this program, I was told about 200,000 by
an official in the Bush administration. Well, what do we have now? We
have 400,000 to 600,000 workers a year who come up for 2 years at a
time and go home for 1 year in between. But if you have 400,000 in this
year and they stay for 2 years, and next year you have another 400,000
to go next year, then in years 2 and 3 you are at 800,000, except there
is an escalating clause in there that will probably take it well above
900,000--follow me?--instead of 200,000 or 400,000, the real mechanism
involved in the temporary guest worker program is to create numbers
that amount to almost a million guest workers.
Now, these guest workers are different from the 12 million who will
be given legal status here. It is different from the 1 million to 2
million flow of people who will be coming into the country on the
citizenship track. This would be 1 million here as guest workers. So
you see, we have to get these numbers straight. How many people are
being let in by this bill? We are having a hard time getting it out.
Remember, the bill was only introduced last night. A staff offered
draft copy of it was produced Saturday morning. So who knows for sure?
Who can say for certain what this actually means? I tell you, we intend
to look at it, and we intend to make sure the Members of the Senate and
the American people understand how big an impact this is.
What we do know, from last year's bill, even after Senator Bingaman
offered two amendments that passed, and I offered one to reduce the
overall numbers, it dropped from 80 million to 200 million over 20
years. Let me go back and repeat that. Last year's bill, as introduced
on the floor, the McCain-Kennedy bill, would have allowed into our
country 78 million to 200 million people in 20 years. Now, we only have
300 million in America at this time. Do

[[Page S6427]]

you understand the significance of that?
I don't know if they knew those numbers or somebody was trying to
pull a fast one, but it was breathtaking. We came up with those
numbers. The Heritage Foundation was doing an independent analysis, and
they came up with very similar numbers. So Senator Bingaman offered two
amendments and I offered one that passed and it reduced the number to
53 million. Real progress; right? Not so fast.
The current rate of immigration over 20 years in our country is 18.9
million, maybe closer to 20 million. So it was at 53 million, which is
2\1/2\ times the current rate of immigration. So I don't think the
American people who thought we were reforming immigration ever
understood that the real plan was to increase legal immigration by 2\1/
2\ times.
So I am worried about the numbers in this year's bill, is all I am
saying. We are going to look at it. I haven't been able to figure it
out yet, but my super staff is getting close, and we are going to keep
working on it. But that needs to be acknowledged. I think there is
going to be push-back on this huge number of temporary workers, which
appears to me to be three times what the administration suggested to
me, this year, would be an appropriate number. Of course, the President
is bent on having workers for everybody who needs one.
The 2 years, the 2 years, and the 2 years, let us say a person came
as a temporary worker and they worked 2 years and went home; worked 2
years and went home; worked 2 years and went home. There are bad things
that occur from that program as a practical matter. Is the employer
going to depend on this person every 2 years, when that worker has to
go home? That is not practical to me. Then they are finished. They,
perhaps, had no desire to live in America permanently or become a
citizen of America but wanted to be a temporary worker. Yet now they
are put in a position where they have to apply for a green card and
citizenship and try to compete on this permanent citizenship track so
they can keep working. For people who may have no desire to apply for a
green card, they would have to, under this system. So I think it
creates a magnet for dual citizenship in a way that is not necessary.
I think it would complicate the life of a business to have this break
in their employment. I would like to see a system, myself, in which a
person could come 10 months a year in America, or less--they may want
to work less--and they would have a good ID so they could go back and
forth to visit their family or their home as many times as they chose.
They would go home each year for several months and could come back the
next year, if they chose and if the employer wanted and if they were
certified to come back and hadn't been convicted of a crime or done
anything else that would disqualify them. That, to me, makes more
sense. Maybe the drafters have a better idea than I do on it--I don't
think so at this point.

Now, one of the issues we talked about in last year's debate, and I
emphasize it because nobody had even considered it, is why shouldn't we
go to a merit-based system--a system that is skill based--where we
would have people come into this country based on their opportunity for
success here, based on their ability to flourish in our economy? What
we learned was that Canada does that. Canada spent several years of
national discussion, and then their Parliament got together and decided
the question. They passed a law that said to the immigration department
in Canada, you work with our economics department and you set up an
immigration system for our country that says 60 percent of the people
who would enter our country would enter based on skills and merit and
education that we think are important for Canada because we believe our
immigration policies should serve the national Canadian interest. It
should make Canada better. We believe this is the right policy.
That was done and is being executed today. I met, in my office last
year, with the gentleman who was the director of that program, and he
explained to me that it was very popular. They like it in Canada. We
had never even discussed it last year. I tried to get a hearing in the
Judiciary Committee on it. No, they didn't have time. Senator Mike
Enzi, who was chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee, agreed to have a hearing on it, and we did that. We had
experts testify on that and very little negative was said about it. The
witnesses at various hearings we had all said an immigration policy, in
their opinion, should serve the national interest, and a skill-based
program serves the national interest. That is why they did it.
Australia does the same thing. Australia has 60 percent enter on
merit; New Zealand has a similar program; the United Kingdom is looking
at it; and I believe the Netherlands and other countries are
considering more movement in that area. The developed world is moving
in that area, except the United States. Only 20 percent of the people
who enter our country with green cards get those permanent resident
green cards based on skills--only 20 percent. Sixty percent, almost,
get their permanent residence based on family.
Now, no one disputes, and this bill certainly doesn't, and neither do
I, that if we give permanent residence to anyone, to a man, to come to
America, he should be able to bring his wife and his minor children.
But if you choose to come to America--you tell me, I say to my church
friends--tell me why, if you choose to leave your extended family and
come to America and establish a new life, what right do you have to
demand that your aging parents should come with you? What right do you
have, what moral right do you have to demand that?
That is what we are doing today. Parents are allowed to come, as well
as adult children, as well as brothers and sisters--the siblings. So
under the current system of chain migration, a person comes to America
and they get a green card, or become a citizen, and they are able then
to bring their aging parents or bring their brothers and sisters, who
are then able to bring their wives and their children. That is how we
get nearly 60 percent of immigration in America not based on skills.
That is the policy question I thought had been established when we
adopted the new framework that became the basis for the new bill that
was introduced late last night. Does the new bill get us there? It does
adopt a point system. I have to say I was excited about that because I
believe so strongly that was the right direction for us to go. I was
excited about that. But as I read the bill, I was very dispirited.
For example, what happens in the years 2008 to 2012 if this bill
becomes law? Skill-based immigration will remain capped at the current
level of 140,000 for the first 5 years until 2012. Even out of this
140,000, 10,000 will be carved out for temporary, low-skilled workers.
I am not talking about temporary workers now but people on a track to
citizenship--green card, permanent residence, and then citizenship. The
140,000 green cards we have set aside for that track, they have taken
10,000 of that for the temporary workers who come without a merit-based
system.
So there is a step taken in the bill to reduce chain migration, and
it reduces it, it appeared, immediately and even back I think 2 years.
But it says that if you were an applicant to come into our country for
a permanent residence, as part of a chain migration application, you
are considered to be a backlogged applicant. As a backlogged applicant,
this bill says we are going to give you the opportunity to come and to
get permanent residence in America, even though people who applied
after a certain date would not get to have that provision applied to
them. This will free up some numbers that will not be coming in on
chain migration, but the theory was the green card numbers would be
shifted to a skill-based, point-based system like Canada's. That is how
you get there, and this bill does attempt to do that. Unfortunately, it
takes a lot of time to get there.

Under this bill, they will take 8 years of those saved green card
numbers and apply them to the backlog. There are about 3 million
backlogged chain migration petitions, and each one amounts to about 2.2
persons because they could bring a wife or a child with them, sometimes
3 or 4 children. If you are in the backlog as a brother of a citizen
and you have been in the backlog for several years, then you get to
come with your family--not just yourself as

[[Page S6428]]

a brother, but you get to bring your family--in the next 8 years. So we
think it will total up to 6 to 8 million people who are in the backlog.
We are not moving to a merit-based system any time soon. Actually, it
is going to be 8 years out before it really kicks in. I don't know what
will happen in 8 years. I have grown, in my 10 years in this Senate, to
be somewhat worried about what we are likely to do when that happens.
I salute my colleagues for making a decision that appears to shift us
to a more healthy view of immigration that will be more likely to serve
our national interest. But I am disappointed that it is not going to
really take effect for 8 years. That is so long, I am not sure I can
buy that as a legitimate compromise.
My colleagues say: We did the best we can do. Jeff, there are things
in the bill I don't like. I would like to have it take place right now.
Why don't we make it happen right now? Why wait 8 years? We don't
have a right to offer amendments and fix that? We need to think about
it.
Another thing is, in Canada they have, as I said, 60 percent based on
skills. We think the numbers in the United States--from 20 to 22
percent based on skills--will not exceed 40 percent. In fact, Senator
Kennedy, who really opposed this part of the provision, estimates it
would only be 30 percent. That is not enough. We need to look at these
numbers. If we don't have a proposal which would carry us 50 percent or
above, I don't think we have made the kind of real progress in that
area that we could.
Also, the system is going to skew, again, to the temporary workers.
If you are here as a temporary worker, you get 6 to 8 points for adult
sons and daughters who might apply under the point system, 4 points for
brothers and sisters of citizens and permanent residents, and 2 extra
points if you apply for a chain migration category between May 1, 2005,
and now. So a significant number of points are given based on family, I
am concerned about that.
Points are going to be given not just for higher skills but for high-
demand occupations. That is what the temporary program is for, the
high-demand occupations. I think the permanent track to citizenship
should clearly shift to a more skill-based system. But we are going to
give a lot of this skill-based system personnel--they will get 16
points on the point scale if they are in a high-demand occupation.
These could be fairly low-skilled jobs. You could be in the service
industry or things of that nature, low-skill personnel and things of
that nature, or food processing. That is an undermining of the
principle of moving to a merit-based, skill-based system. That worries
me, that we are not getting there sufficiently on the point system. It
is just frustrating to see that.
Why is that point-based system important in the long run? Just
because Canada has gone through this process and has reached that
conclusion? No.
Mr. Robert Rector is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a
premier think tank, a conservative think tank but one of the most
respected in America. Mr. Rector has for well over 20 years, I suppose,
been recognized as one of the most knowledgeable persons in America on
welfare and social policy. He is widely recognized as the architect of
the highly successful major welfare reform that was done a number of
years ago. Eventually, after 2 vetoes, President Clinton signed it, and
it became a very popular program that reduced child poverty and created
a system where lots of people went out and found work. The welfare
office became an employment office where people can be counseled on how
to get work, and people are now out being very proud to be
breadwinners, bringing home money--more than they ever thought possible
sometimes--just because they got out of the welfare trap and into
workplace. That is what Mr. Rector was part of.
At a press conference yesterday, he was very strong in his view that
we have a big problem with low-skilled immigrants. He talked about some
things you don't like to talk about so much, but it is just a fact, and
all these other countries have had to deal with it. When you are low
skilled, have low education, you tend to collect more from the
government than you put in. That is a big problem. What he concluded
was that the necessary fiscal deficit for a house which is headed by a
person without a high school degree is $19,000 a year. He put his
pencil on it. He calculated it out. I don't know whether that figure is
correct, I didn't calculate the numbers myself but that is what he said
yesterday. This is Mr. Rector. He noted that $19,000 per year in
benefits could buy each one of those families a new automobile every
year.
He calculated that, over a lifetime, the numbers are worse, that we
should calculate the numbers not in the first 10 years where they would
be artificially low but calculate them over a lifetime. He calculated
that if we pass this bill, the immigrant households headed by non-high
school graduates would take out of the U.S. Treasury $2.3 trillion more
than they pay in over their lifetime. That is the group which would be
in the 12 million who would be legalized.
There are reasons for that. People with education, with language
skills, who have skills and talents America needs, who apply in a
point-based merit system, who have any college at all when they come,
tend to do very well in America. In fact, the numbers show that if you
just had 2 years of college, you tend to do very well and pay much more
in taxes than you would ever take out in taxes. We have to be careful
that our business friends understand that somebody is picking up the
tab if they have low-skilled, low-wage workers. It may not be the
employer, but somebody is paying. It is the Social Security system, it
is the Medicare system, it is the American taxpayers who pay.
I see my good friend from Florida.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield such time as the Senator wishes.
Mr. MARTINEZ. The Senator is very kind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I wanted to point out that last year my colleague
rightly pointed to a serious problem with last year's bill dealing with
chain migration. I recall the Senator coming to the floor and
explaining what had not been well understood until then, which is the
fact that, as people were acquiring legal permanent resident status,
then they would also have the opportunity to bring family members. That
would result in a huge problem. We have 12 million illegals. If those
12 million are somehow legalized and then they can also chain migrate
their families, we would end up with a problem manyfold what it would
be otherwise.
In this bill, we tried mightily to end chain migration, and I think
we have for the most part. I want to say to the Senator from Alabama,
it is because of his good work last year in pointing out that flaw in
the bill that I think now we have corrected and reversed course in what
I think is, by some, a real problem in terms of family reunification.
But at the end of the day, I think it is the right thing for America.
If we allow those who are here, after a probationary period, after
payment of fines, and ultimately after returning to their home country,
to legally apply for readmittance, that then chain migration would not
be permitted, I think that is a fair tradeoff and is at the heart of
what is called by some the ``grand bargain,'' a massive coming together
we had. I want to give the Senator very much due credit for having a
real hand in what it is that is at the heart of this new agreement.
I realize the Senator may have many other issues of concern. I hope,
as we go forward and talk about them, we will alleviate some of those
concerns. I think one of the things that has happened is it is a
massive bill. Here we have it now still not in printed form as we go
through it. I compliment the majority leader for giving us the extra
time so we all have a chance to get into what is in the details of the
bill.
There has been a lot of emotion and a lot of conversation and a lot
of it not very well based on what is in the bill. The trigger is in the
bill, and I know Senator Isakson from Georgia will be speaking to that
this afternoon. It is fundamental. Nothing happens until the border is
secure.
I wish to give the Senator credit where credit is due for a good step
along the way.
Mr. SESSIONS. I say to Senator Martinez that I thank him for that,

[[Page S6429]]

but he was one of the people who stood firm on this issue of a more
merit-based, competitive system of immigration, like Canada. Without
his leadership, I know it would not have happened. In fact, his
personnel leadership was pivotal in a number of areas in this
legislation that made it better than it would otherwise have been. I
appreciate that.
My concern on the bill is that by saying the backlog gets approved,
we delay about 8 years moving to the full implementation of a merit
system. I know, when you are in a meeting and you have to negotiate
with people--I know Senator Kennedy didn't want to do this at all.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Right.
Mr. SESSIONS. You had to reach a compromise. But the compromise of
waiting 8 years is troubling to me. I like the move. I thank the
Senator for his leadership, and that is the point I have tried to make
this morning.
I thank Senator Martinez. The Senator himself is an immigrant from
Cuba and has risen to serve as a member of the Cabinet of the President
of the United States and now an outstanding Member of this Senate. I am
proud to know him. I am also proud his wife is from my hometown of
Mobile, AL. She is wonderful also.
As I understand the chain migration matter, in fact, it does end
chain migration mostly, but it does allow 40,000 parents to come each
year. There are some restrictions on it, but 40,000 parents. So those
40,000 more elderly parents--by the way, Canada gives points for youth.
They believe Canada benefits from a younger rather than an older
immigrant.
But those parents who come--we have to be honest with ourselves are
not going to be net gain like a young skilled person. But that was the
compromise they pounded away at. Some said family reunification, we
have to have family reunification. So instead of eliminating aging
parents, they agreed to cap them at about half the number we currently
have of parents who get to come each year.
But what I want to ask you to think about is, here is a young man in
Honduras who went to high school, graduated, maybe was valedictorian of
his class, taken English, utilizes television and radio to improve his
English, has 2 years of college. He applies to get in the United
States.
He wants to come here very badly. Maybe he has a distant cousin here
or maybe he has read about America. Maybe he wants to come here and
work and go to college and earn a degree and be a doctor. I don't know
what is in that young man's mind. It is a zero-sum game.
If you let the parent in, you deny someone such as that the ability
to come in on a more meritorious basis. That is why this is not an easy
call and why we need to be clear about this. Every time we allow a
chain migrant or an aging parent to take an immigration slot, we are
denying someone who deeply wants to come, who could be selected on
merit from the large number out there who want to come to America, that
would be more successful and flourish here. That is all I am saying.
We hear stories about familial reunification. I know that is nice to
talk about. That could be important to an immigrant who becomes a
citizen and wants to also bring their extended family. It might be
important to them personally. But the real question is, what we have to
ask is: Is this important to the national interest? What is in the best
national interest? The best national interest, I believe, and other
nations of the developed world have concluded, requires a movement
where you can bring your wife and children, but you don't get to bring
extended family in.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes prior to the recess.
Mr. SESSIONS. All right. I will use that and then reserve the
remainder of the time.
Another principle of the PowerPoint presentation was the question of
giving legal status to persons currently illegally in the country
through a new visa. But it was stated as one of the principles that
there would be no special path to citizenship. That was a direct quote.
``No special path to citizenship.''
However, the bill clearly creates a system whereby current people
here illegally are treated differently, better, than those who tried to
come to the country lawfully.
That is a principle I think we have all said we don't want to breach.
In fact, the PowerPoint principle about any new immigration bill stated
that would be one of the principles. This bill is not jackpot amnesty,
as some would say; but I think it is a form of amnesty, however you
want to define it.
I have not tried to use that word too much because I am not sure what
it means to anybody. If I use the word amnesty, it tends to mean that
you allowed somebody who came here illegally to stay permanently. That
is a form of amnesty. I mean, normally they would be apprehended and
removed. That is what the law would require.
But whatever amnesty is, I have concluded that the principle we
should adhere to is, that if someone did come to our country illegally,
and we have now not enforced the law as we would expect the law to be
enforced but are going to allow them to stay here in our country, come
out of the shadows to have a legal status, that we can do that, but we
should not provide to that illegal entrant every single benefit we
provide the persons who wait in line and come lawfully.
I see no reason to do that. That is what we did in 1986. The speeches
were crystal clear: Never again. This is the last amnesty. Because
those people in 1986 understood that if amnesty became the rule, we
would totally undermine respect for our legal system. So here we are,
20 years later, granting another amnesty. I think we need to maintain
some clarity so there is a difference in status of those who come
illegally.
Now, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, gave a definition. He
made a statement that is valuable. ``One thing is for sure, if this
bill gives them any preferential treatment towards citizenship over
people who came into the country in the proper way, that is a non-
starter.''
I would go further. I think we can give some kind of legal status and
certain benefits to people who come illegally, but I believe they
should not be given benefits that lead to citizenship--that powerful,
wonderful thing, citizenship in the United States--based on an illegal
act. I do not think we should. I think we should say forever--in 1986,
we said the truth then--you come illegally, you are not going to
benefit. We are not going to do this again. We should do that.
Now, if they have children born here, the children can become
citizens. But there will be detriments to having come illegally that
would be permanent, that are not going to be wiped out. That is my
personal view. We will see how it goes.
I would say, with regard to the question of moving to citizenship,
there are at least five preferential treatments toward citizenship
given to the illegal alien population by this bill. Preferential
treatment.
First, illegal aliens who rushed across the border between January 7,
2004--the date contained in last year's bill--and January 1, 2007, this
January, will be eligible for amnesty. This includes illegal aliens who
have been here for a mere 5 months. They would be eligible for the
amnesty, be eligible to be put on track for citizenship, even if they
came into our country last December 31. Remember, we called out the
National Guard, the President did, after the American people put the
heat on, called out the National Guard. We are building fences now, not
enough, but we are building barriers. We are increasing agents and we
are saying: The border is closed. But we turn around and have a bill
that says that somebody who got past the National Guard, got past the
Border Patrol, got around the fence, is now going to be put on a path,
guaranteed path to citizenship.
Now, I don't think that is good public policy. That does not breed
respect for the law. I was a Federal prosecutor for nearly 15 years. I
am telling you, if you don't enforce a law, it is undermined and
undermines respect for the Government in general, frankly.
I will not go any further. I think our time is about finished. I
would thank my colleagues for their attention to this bill. I hope they
will be reading it. I hope the research we do might be helpful to some
of you as you work on

[[Page S6430]]

it and try to decide how you should handle this very important piece of
legislation. We need to do something. We need to do something that is
good. We need to pass a bill. I guess no bill will be perfect, but we
do not need to pass bills with serious flaws in them, those that
undermine the principles that any effective immigration system should
be founded on.
I will have extra time. We will talk about that later and talk about
some other things I have.
I yield the floor.

____________________