Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 88 (Monday, June 4, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 88 (Monday, June 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6975-S6982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IMMIGRATION REFORM

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Alabama
for his strong words and strong support for the amendments we offered a
few weeks ago on the guest worker program. Let me thank my colleague
from Alabama for his support particularly for that amendment 2 weeks
ago.
I want to take a few minutes in morning business today, before the
Senate gets into its busiest period of the week--which we all know
begins on Tuesday, usually--to talk about two other amendments I have
filed to this bill, and I hope I will have a chance to have the Senate
vote on before the bill is completed.
Let me first talk about one of those amendments that is addressing a
provision in the immigration bill that I think is impractical and I
don't think makes any sense, the provision I am trying to correct.
Before addressing the specific provision, let me once again put this
in context. This bill, the underlying legislation, calls for three so-
called temporary worker programs. There is an agricultural temporary
worker program, and I am not suggesting any change to that program.
That is part of the underlying bill. There is a seasonal temporary
worker program, where people can come in for up to 10 months and then
have to leave the country for 2 months and then come back the next
year. That one I do have a second amendment on, which I want to talk
about in a minute. Then there is the new temporary worker program that
was the subject of my amendment 2 weeks ago.
Let me briefly describe how this third so-called temporary worker
program works. It contemplates a new guest worker program. It says
guest workers would be permitted to come to this country and work for 2
years. At the end of the 2 years, they have to leave the country for a
year. Then that same worker could come back for another 2 years and
then leave the country again for another year; then come back and work
2 more years and then have to leave the country permanently. So over a
period of, I guess it would be 9 years--during that period the worker
could be here up to 6 years, but there would have to be two periods of
a year each during which the worker was outside the country.
My amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Obama, would remove the
requirement that guest workers leave the United States before they
renew their visas to work under this program. It would not modify the
total period they could stay here, which would still be limited to 6
years. It would not change the terms of their visa. But the amendment I
am offering would provide that guest workers would be given a 2-year
visa they could then renew twice and do their full 6 years of work and
then their visa would no longer permit them to stay.
Requiring these workers to leave the country for a lengthy period of
time between each 2-year work period is a problem for several reasons.
It is bad for the employers, first. It is also bad for American workers
who might also want to have some of these jobs--and these are generally
construction type jobs. These are not agricultural jobs. These are not
jobs for teenagers in seasonal employment.

[[Page S6976]]

Obviously, another problem with this provision is it is extremely
difficult and costly to enforce. I doubt seriously if we have the
capacity to enforce it at this point. It increases dramatically the
likelihood that individuals are going to overstay their visas.
First, let me talk about the employers. It would be very costly and
burdensome to require that employers rehire and retrain new workers
every 2 years. Employers are not going to give an employee a 1-year
vacation. When one of these so-called guest workers leaves the job in
order to comply with this provision of law, the employer will have no
choice but to find somebody else to bring on. The 1-year leave
provision would be especially harmful to small businesses, and it would
cause enormous instability in the workforce if they actually depended
upon guest workers for some of that work.
Governor Napolitano from Arizona recently wrote a column in the New
York Times. Let me quote a couple of sentences from that column.
She says:

The proposed notion that temporary workers stay here for
two years, return home for a year, then repeat that strange
cycle two more times makes no sense. No employer can afford
this schedule, hiring and training, only to have a worker who
soon will leave. It will only encourage employers and workers
to find new ways to break the rules.

Now, that was on June 1 in the New York Times. In my view, Governor
Napolitano is absolutely correct. The current bill is also bad for
American workers. American workers will be forced to compete with a
constant flow of guest workers who would always be at the low end of
the salary scale by virtue of the fact that they would have to leave
every 2 years.
So if guest workers are kicked out of the country every 2 years,
wages cannot increase, there will always be a justification to pay
those workers the lowest possible wage. The requirement that these
guest workers leave the country every 2 years would also result in an
increase in the number of individuals who overstay their visas in order
to avoid having to leave the United States for that lengthy period of
time. It would also create additional costs in terms of tracking those
individuals and ensuring that they, in fact, do leave the country.
These costs, of course, would have to be borne by the taxpayer. It also
assumes that we even have the administrative capacity to track all
these people. Here we are talking about at least 1.2 million so-called
guest workers under only this program. I am not talking about the other
two so-called temporary guest worker programs. But under this so-called
temporary guest worker program, we are talking about 1.2 million
workers.
So we are saying that we would then have administrative
responsibilities somewhere lodged in the Federal Government to keep
track of the comings and goings of these workers every year. I have
real doubts about our ability to do that. Obviously, that is an
assumption. It is assumed, as part of the underlying bill, that we do
have the ability to do that. So if the program is designed in a manner
that is bad for employers, it is bad for employees, it is difficult and
costly to implement, it will lead to an increase in the number of
individuals who overstay their visas, then obviously the question
arises: What is the justification for keeping this provision in the
bill?
I think, unfortunately, the only justification I have been able to
find is that it is being kept in the bill in order to fit this
political mantra that we have been hearing now for months about
``temporary means temporary,'' rather than to implement any sound
policy.
When you look at these guest worker programs, unlike the other
existing guest worker programs, such as the H-2B seasonal program for
nonagricultural workers, the H-2A agricultural program, which were
designed to fill jobs that, in fact, are of a temporary nature, the new
Y-1 program, which we are talking about here, is designed to fill jobs
throughout the economy that are permanent jobs. These are jobs in the
construction industry, primarily. The 2-1-2 requirement, which is in
the underlying bill, artificially tries to turn these workers into
temporary workers by kicking them out of the country every 2 years,
even though they will be filling jobs that are not temporary, they are
permanent jobs.
Last year's immigration bill, S. 2611, allowed new guest workers to
stay in the United States for a period of 3 years to renew that visa
for a total of 6 years. There was no requirement that the individuals
leave the country before they renewed that visa. I think that type of
framework is much more sensible.
One of the primary goals of comprehensive immigration reform is to
create a new and workable system that would ensure that we are not in
the situation we are in now once again 20 years from now. I do not
believe the current framework of this so-called temporary worker
program advances that goal.
Let me also take a moment to address concerns that the adoption of
this amendment will somehow kill the immigration bill. During debate on
the immigration bill, questions keep arising about whether a particular
amendment being offered by one Senator or another is consistent with
the so-called ``grand bargain'' that has been reached.
I commend the Senators who worked tirelessly to come up with an
agreement on this difficult issue. This agreement was reached between a
handful of Senators. That should not be considered, in my view, a
substitute for deliberation by the full Senate. One of the first
amendments I offered was the one the Senator from Alabama referred to,
an amendment that reduced the number of guest workers under this
program to 200,000 per year--the number of new guest workers, I should
say.
Despite the fact that amendment was adopted by or supported by 74
Senators, I have heard repeated questions about whether this was a deal
killer. It is interesting to me that a measure which garners the
support of three-quarters of the Senate somehow is considered a threat
to the prospects of passing the legislation. Frankly, I believe we are
focused on the wrong set of issues. We ought to be trying to
concentrate on getting a bill that has the broadest bipartisan support
in the Senate. I think that each of those amendments, the one I offered
2 weeks ago and this amendment I have been talking about, will help us
to achieve that. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the
consequences of leaving the existing procedures in place for Y-1 guest
workers.
I strongly believe that if we keep this provision in its current
form, we are going to create an expensive and unworkable program for
employers, a system that harms American workers, and an incentive for
guest workers to overstay their visas. For that reason, I hope, when
the opportunity comes for a vote, my colleagues will support our
amendment.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 18 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would then continue to speak as in
morning business for another few minutes to talk about another
amendment.
I have also today filed an amendment on another part of the bill. The
second amendment is aimed at addressing a different issue related to
the Y-2 temporary worker program. Now, the Y-2 program is a temporary
worker program, and it revises and incorporates the existing H-2B
seasonal nonagricultural program.
As I mentioned earlier, this amendment would address the problem of
people whom we bring into the country for up to 10 months, allow them
to work here, whether they are working at resorts or working at some
kind of seasonal employment, nonagricultural seasonal employment, and
then we require them to go home for 2 months. Then they can do that
each year.

As Senators have discussed this program, and as it has been discussed
in the press, its been stated that the underlying substitute amendment
provides for an annual allocation of visas from 100,000 initially to up
to 200,000 each year, depending upon the market demand.
I have a chart I can put up that I think will describe what the Y-2
guest worker program--if, in fact, the 15 percent increase is triggered
in the years, the first 4 years of the program, and how you get from
100,000 up to 200,000.
Well, that is the description. This chart is a fair description of
this program as it has been reported in the

[[Page S6977]]

paper. However, before the substitute amendment was filed, the
underlying bill--I call it a substitute amendment because that is the
technical, correct name for it--a provision was handwritten into the
bill that provides that in any year from now on, the returning Y-2
workers who are present in the United States in any of the preceding 3
fiscal years would not count against the cap.
So the whole idea of 200,000 is not right. The yellow represents the
200,000, the increase from 100,000 to 200,000. But the red on the chart
represents the potential pool of returning workers. You can see this is
taken from an analysis that was done for me by the Congressional
Research Service. We asked them to please look at the provision and
give us their analysis of what is the size of the group that could come
in under this program with this provision in it.
They said: Well, it could be up to about 1.6, 1.7 million people over
10 years; they would be eligible to come in every year. Now, that is
not cumulative, that is every year that many people would be able to
come in.
The impact of this little-noticed provision is quite profound.
Obviously, this is the high end of the approximation because we would
not expect that every single worker who came here to work for 10 months
during 1 year, or for some period during 1 year, would choose to come
back the next year. But I think a reasonably high percentage of them
might choose to come back.
Today, we have about 135,000. This year, in 2007, we have about
135,000 workers in the country or connected in this country this year
under this seasonal temporary worker program. I have no problem seeing
that increased to 200,000. That is what the initial draft of the bill
contemplated. I do have a problem when it might increase by well over a
million. I think that is not what many Members of the Senate understand
is going to happen under this bill. I do not think it is what should
happen under this bill. I think it is reasonable to require that the
numerical limitation already in the bill actually means something; that
is, the 200,000 limit.
The amendment I am offering does not eliminate the returning worker
provisions, not by any means. It says: If you want to change the number
from the current law, which is 66,000 up to 100,000, fine. If you want
to then say it can grow from 100,000 to 200,000 per year, fine. But
let's not also say that anyone who has worked here in any of the 3
preceding years can come in on top of that because that is when your
numbers get totally out of control.
The amendment is aimed at ensuring the bill does what I believe a
majority of Senators believe it does; that is, it would allow the
issuance of up to 200,000 Y-2 visas each year for these seasonal
workers. I think that is something which I can support as a matter of
policy.
Again, my amendment merely brings the underlying language of the bill
into line with what I believe most Senators think the bill now
provides; that is, keeps it under 200,000.
That is a description of the two amendments I have filed today. I
think they are both meritorious amendments. I urge my colleagues to
look at them, to consider them. I hope very much that I have an
opportunity to get votes on those amendments this week before we
conclude action on the bill because I think both amendments would--each
of the two amendments would improve the bill and make it much better
public policy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his work on
this. It is obvious he has read the legislation and attempted to see
what it actually means, which is a good thing, and done too little in
this Senate, but it is important especially in this legislation where
it is so critical.
Let me say what I understood the whole deal was supposed about. It
was put very simply to me how we were going to have a new immigration
system, in this new legislation that was going to be better than last
year's bill. The way I understood it, from the talking points that were
suggested and floated around and that we were briefed with, there would
be a temporary worker program that would actually be temporary. To me
that means a person would come for less than a year but could come back
repeatedly after that, as long as their employer is happy and they have
work to come to and they have not gotten in any trouble. And, they
would not bring their families with them.
That is what I thought we were talking about. Then we were told that
there would be a separate second flow for people who enter America
permanently, coming into America to go on a citizenship track. And we
were told that track would be evaluated using a different system, it
would be more skill based.
In other words, a person would apply, and they would compete for the
slots based on the skills they had and that we have in the United
States. So I am concerned and share the concern of Senator Bingaman
that the temporary worker program which allows 2 years' entry, then
says go home and come back 1 year from now for another 2 years and then
go home for a year, and come back for the final 2 years and never come
back again seems less workable than the temporary seasonal worker
program we have today. I am concerned about that.
Remember, we are still going to have the constant flow of people who
come in on the citizenship track and get a green card and become
permanent citizens. They will also be workers, their family members
will also be workers. We are not stopping that. But this bill creates a
separate temporary worker program. I believe a system of temporary
workers needs to work, needs to make sense, needs to be consistent with
common sense, and ought to be in a way that is practical. I am not sure
the legislation as introduced does that.
Senator Grassley spoke before we recessed and asked this question:
Why is it nobody has said this time, as they did in 1986, that there
would be no more amnesties? He said he was here in 1986. He remembered
what they said. It was admitted that they were having amnesty and they
made a promise we wouldn't have amnesty anymore. People said: If we do
it this one time, we won't do it again. He asked why we weren't hearing
it said again. Of course, he answered his own question. The answer is,
because bill sponsors can not make that promise. How can we say we are
not going to have it anymore, after having said we would not do it
again, and doing it again, and presumably we would be doing it again
after that?
I mentioned the enforcement trigger. This was designed to make sure
if we give amnesty, enforcement would occur. We put some things in the
trigger that had to be done before some of the benefits of this program
would accrue, but a lot of things were left out, and the things left
out were quite troubling. They make you wonder how serious we are about
creating a lawful system in the future, for example. The enforcement
trigger that has the requirements that must be met before the new
temporary worker program begins does not require the exit portion of
the US-VISIT system, that is the biometric border check-in, checkout
system first required by the Congress in 1996, be working. That is a
cause for concern because it is already well past the year 2005, when
this bill required that the U.S. visa exit system be in effect.
In other words, in 1996, we said: OK, we are passing a law, and we
are going to have an exit-entry visa system at the border that will
clock you in when you come in with a biometric card, and it will clock
you out when you go out, just as you do when you are working at a job.
Just like a lot of employment agencies and businesses have those kind
of things. OK? It was due to be completed in 2005. Without the U.S.
visa exit portion, the United States has no method to ensure that the
workers or their visiting families, who are allowed under certain
circumstances to visit them, do not overstay their visas.
Senator Bingaman has been talking about his concern over the
temporary worker program. Let me ask this: How do we know they are
going to go home when their time is expired if the exit portion of the
US-VISIT system is not up and working? We don't know. It is a
fundamental loophole of monumental proportions, and I am surprised it
is not in there. Once again, it suggests those promoting this
legislation may not be serious about creating an immigration system
that works. They may

[[Page S6978]]

like a system that allows virtually anyone determined to come here to
come here.
There is another matter I wanted to mention in the trigger
requirement. If it is not in the trigger, there is no way to say the
bills sponsor really intend for it to happen. The example of the U.S.
VISIT system indicates something about the nature of the Senate.
Remember, in 1996, this Senate passed legislation that required the US-
VISIT exit system be in effect by 2005. Then 2005 came and went. That
did not occur. What does that mean? It means you can pass any law here
and say you are going to do something in the future, but if you don't
fund it or future Congresses don't fund it or future Presidents don't
fight for it, it may not ever occur. That is all I am saying. That is
why the American people need to be concerned about amnesty coming
before all of the needed enforcement items.
Another matter that involves what we are doing here involves having
enough bedspace to end catch and release at the border. We passed a law
in 2004 that requires 43,000 beds to be in place by the end of 2007.
This is to end the catch-and-release section of the bill. Those beds
have not been completed. In this legislation, it only required 27,000
beds. We had already required 43,000, but as I said, we are going to
have to have 27,500. Then Senator Gregg offered an amendment to
increase that to 31,500. We passed legislation in 2004, as part of the
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, to require much more bed space than
this, and they have not been completed. Because we pass legislation
doesn't mean it is going to happen.
There is another loophole I will mention. I have 25. I should have
added the problem Senator Bingaman just mentioned. I could have added
many more than 25. Let's look at No. 4. Aliens who broke into this
country a mere 5 months ago are provided permanent legal status in our
country and are treated better than foreign nationals who legally
applied to come to the United States more than 2 years ago. Aliens who
can prove they were here illegally in the United States on January 1 of
this year are immediately eligible to apply from inside the United
States for amnesty benefits, while foreign nationals who
filed applications to come to the United States after May 1 of 2005,
over 2 years ago, must start the application process all over again
from their home countries.

The bill sponsors continue to claim this bill is necessary because
illegal aliens have deep roots in the United States and are, therefore,
impossible to remove. They claim that they have families here. They
have been working here for many years. They can't be asked to leave.
There is some truth in some of those situations, for sure, but it
simply is not true in all cases. It is simply not true in many cases.
The young man who ran past the National Guard out at the border
somewhere last December is going to be given amnesty here in this
country.
The American people want us to treat the illegal alien population
compassionately, I do believe, but there is no reason to lump all
illegal aliens, regardless of when and how they got here or how deep
their roots are, into the same amnesty program. Last year's Senate bill
would have given illegal aliens amnesty if they could prove they had
been in the United States since January 7, 2004. A lot of people want
us to believe that this is a tougher bill than last year's bill. At
least last year they said you had to have been in the country by
January 7, 2004. This year the bill expanded the amnesty window by 3
years to 2007. Under this year's bill, illegal aliens who have rushed
across the border in the last few years, including those who came 5
months ago, will be given all the amnesty benefits as those who have
been living here for decades, have U.S. citizens in schools, and have
been good workers.
The January 7, 2004 date, why was that date selected last year as a
cutoff date? It was important because that was when President Bush
first gave his speech saying we needed a lawful system of comprehensive
reform of immigration in America. We knew that when he gave that
speech--and he was talking about amnesty for people here illegally--
that that would encourage more people to try to come into the country
so they could be provided amnesty too. So they cut off the dates and
said: If you came in after the President's speech, you can't get the
advantage of the amnesty. That makes sense, I think.
Then even more significantly, last year, in May 2006, President Bush
announced the beginning of Operation Jump Start. Do you remember that?
That was the program to put the National Guard at the border. He called
out the National Guard. So this bill says if you ignored our
announcement that we are going to make a lawful system of comprehensive
reform, if you ignored the announcement that the border is closed, if
you ignored and ran past the National Guard we put on the border to
create a lawful system there, as long as you got here by December 31 of
last year, you get to apply for full amnesty. You are home free. You
are in.
I don't think that is required. I don't think that is good policy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the minority has
expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 additional
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. The bill's drafters say amnesty applicants will be at
the back of the line and will not be treated preferentially to those
who have followed the law. That is not true in a number of cases and in
this case. The bill allows the illegal aliens who got here 5 months ago
to cut in line in front of people in the family green card backlog who
filed their applications after May 1, 2005, 2 years after. Illegal
aliens who came to the United States 5 months ago will get probationary
Z visa status 1 day after filing a Z visa application. I suppose those
who followed the law, who made their application properly, who waited
in line may wonder why they didn't come illegally also. Isn't that the
message we are sending? So this provision in the bill does not restore
respect for the rule of law. It erodes it. At a minimum, no illegal
alien should be treated better than a foreign national who applied to
come legally. The amnesty date should be moved back to May 1, 2005. I
will have an amendment to that effect.
I see my colleague here, Senator Dorgan. I appreciate his insight
into these issues and his willingness to ask some tough questions about
the system and the bill before us and to point out some of the
weaknesses in it. That has been helpful to the debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak in morning business for such time as I may consume, and to the
extent that exceeds the limit of the majority in morning business, I
would ask that the minority be accorded the same amount of time if they
so desire.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I am not sure I quite understand that.
Mr. DORGAN. How much morning business remains on our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 11\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized in morning business
for as much time as I may consume. My understanding is we will be going
to the bill as soon as I finish speaking.
Mr. SESSIONS. I wondered if the Senator was going to continue and how
long he might speak.
Mr. DORGAN. It is my intention to speak for perhaps 20 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I have no objection, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this issue of immigration is a very
passionate issue and raises the passions in this country in a
significant way. I understand all of that. I have described often on
the floor of the Senate the circumstances of what has brought us to
this point.
This country we live in is a remarkable country. If you have a globe
in front of you, and spin the globe, and take a look at all the land
that exists on your globe, you will see there is just one little spot
called the United States of America, but it is a very different spot
than much of the rest of the world.

[[Page S6979]]

We have raised incomes in this country, expanded the middle class,
created a standard and a scale of living that is pretty unusual and
pretty remarkable. Because of that, because we have dramatically
expanded the middle class and have created a country that is very
different than many other countries on this Earth, there are many who
live on this planet who want to come here.
Last week, I described being in a helicopter, flying between Honduras
and Nicaragua, up in the mountainous jungle areas some long while ago,
and we ran out of gas. I discovered on a helicopter when you run out of
gas, you are going to be landing very soon. We were not hurt, of
course, but the red lights and the alarm bells were ringing and going
off, and our pilots put us down in a clearing.
While we were there, I heard from some campesinos who came up to see
who had landed in these helicopters. Through an interpreter, I visited
with the campesinos. I heard from them what I have heard in virtually
every part of the world in which I have traveled. I spoke with a young
woman in her early twenties. She had three children with her. I asked
her--after we visited--through an interpreter: What do you want for you
and your children?
She said: Oh, I want to come to the United States of America.
That is not unusual. I have heard that all over the world: I want to
come to the United States of America. I asked her why.
She said: Well, there is opportunity there--an opportunity for a
better life for me and my children.
We have built something quite unusual in this country, and many from
around this planet would like to come here. I understand that. Let me
give you an example of why.
If you live in China, the average hourly wage for factory workers is
33 cents an hour. If you are in Bangladesh, 33 cents an hour is the
average annual hourly wage, if you can find a factory job. If you are
in Nicaragua, 37 cents an hour is the average annual hourly wage. In
India, 11 cents an hour is the average wage. In Haiti, it is 30 cents
an hour, if you can find a job. In Russia, it is 51 cents an hour. I
could go on.
But my point is, there are people living in countries where, if they
can find a job, they are going to be paid 30 cents an hour, 20 cents an
hour, 11 cents an hour, and they take a look at this country, and they
evaluate: Perhaps I need to go to the United States and be a part of
that great country.
Well, because so many want to come here, we have immigration laws and
quotas. We actually allow into this country, under legal quotas, a good
many immigrants every single year. Well over 1 million people come into
this country every single year legally as part of our immigration quota
system. We have quotas for various countries and regions of the world,
and we accept legal immigration from those countries. We would have had
last year over 2 million people come into this country legally, with
both agricultural workers and also under the legal immigration system.
But think for a moment if we decided to do it differently, after what
we have spent well over the last century building in this country to
expand opportunity, expand the middle class, and create an economy that
is the wonder of the world--the real economic engine of the world is
this economic engine of ours. Think of the consequences if, in fact, we
said this: We have a new policy on immigration. Our policy is that
anybody in this world who wants to come here--to stay here, to live
here, to work here, to be part of the American experience--come right
ahead, with no restrictions. Come into this country and be a part of
our great Nation.
If we said that, if, in fact, that were our country's policy, we
would be literally overrun by those who wish to come to be a part of
this American experience--an America with opportunity, an America that
offers hope to people living in squalid poverty, people working for 11
cents an hour. We would be overrun. As a result, what we do have is a
series of immigration laws that provide for legal immigration. It
restricts numbers who come in, but we still have a pretty substantial
number who come in legally into this country.
Now, we are told we have a new immigration proposal put together by a
group of Senators in the Senate with, I understand, the assistance of
the White House--or at least the involvement of the White House--and
brought to the floor of the Senate saying: Here is a new plan. It is 20
years after the last plan, which was in 1986. It was called Simpson-
Mazzoli. It was the immigration plan of 1986. That was a plan that,
back then, promised it would end the problem of illegal immigration by
choking off the demand for illegal labor through tough enforcement and
guest worker programs and also through amnesty of people who were then
in the country at that point in time.
Let me read some quotes for what was done in 1986. Here are quotes in
the Congressional Record. Quote:

The guts of immigration reform are here. All of it.
Employer sanctions, increased enforcement, worker
authorization system, verification systems, and legalization
is [all] there. . . .

That is what was promised 20 years ago. One Senator said:

This bill also . . . should help the Immigration and
Naturalization Service to increase Border Patrol personnel by
50 percent.

Border enforcement, employer sanctions--well, they said: We are going
to ramp up border security, provide employer sanctions, so you don't
have the lure of a job and, therefore, we, at the same time, will
provide amnesty--this is 1986--to about 1 million illegal immigrants.
When amnesty was in fact granted following that, it turns out there
were 3 million or so. Everyone was pretty stunned to learn there was so
little control over the borders then. But now, today--fast-forward 20
years--we have a bill on the floor of the Senate that promises almost
exactly the same thing: tougher border enforcement, employer sanctions,
guest workers, temporary workers--except now, 20 years later, after we
solved the problem 20 years ago, we have 12 million--it is estimated 12
million--people who came here without legal authorization. We do not
know that for sure. We think it is somewhere around 12 million people.
So we have ``comprehensive immigration reform.''

Well, let me go back for a moment and show you that this issue of
border enforcement and employer sanctions is all a matter of
enforcement and will. I have just taken the period from 1999 to 2004.
The current administration, as you can see, has had almost no worksite
enforcement. In fact, in 2004 there were three cases in the entire
Nation brought against employers who hired illegal aliens. Think of
that. In the year 2000 there were 213 cases out of all of this country;
out of the millions and millions of employers in this country, there
were 213 cases. In 2004, it dropped to three, which meant there was no
enforcement at all--no will, no interest, nothing.
Is it surprising, then, that the employers in this country would
decide: Why don't I just risk it, just hire illegal aliens because
nobody is checking?
Here on this chart are the fines that have been levied with respect
to employer sanctions. As you can see, $118,000 for the entire country.
You can see what has happened under this administration. They
apparently decided: We are not going to enforce this at all. The result
is a dramatic increase across the border of illegal immigrants.
Now, I know some do not like the term, and I do not mean the term as
a pejorative term, but it is what it is. We have immigrants who come
into this country--some legally and some illegally. That is just a
fact. So there has been virtually no enforcement by this administration
or really any administration, although the previous administration did
much better.
But now we are told this new plan has an ability to solve this
problem. We are going to have employer sanctions, we are going to have
border enforcement--sound familiar? Yes, it was 20 years ago that was
promised--and we are going to have temporary workers. They now call
them guest workers, but they are temporary workers.
Last week I was interested that some of my colleagues, when they
defeated an amendment I had by a one-vote margin--an amendment I had
that would deal with the temporary worker issue. First, I wanted to
abolish it. That lost by a broader margin. Then I wanted to at least
subset it, and that lost by one vote. Incidentally, there was a lot of
arm twisting to get that

[[Page S6980]]

vote. I have not seen any casts or anything on arms, but I know there
was a lot of arm twisting.
We were told during the debate on the guest worker provision the
following: The manager of the bill and the manager on the minority side
said the same thing. They said: Look, if you do not have a temporary
worker provision to allow those who are not now in this country--even
as we legalize 12 million who are here with a work permit immediately--
if you do not allow millions more to come in--600,000 a year; now
200,000 a year--if you do not allow additional people to come into this
country, they will come anyway. They will come as illegals across the
border.
So I asked the question: Wait a second. You are saying we have to
have a temporary worker program to bring people into this country who
are not now here and declare them legal to take American jobs because
if we don't have a temporary worker program, they will come anyway? I
thought you said you had border enforcement. What you appear to be
saying is, you do not have border enforcement, so for those who would
come illegally, let's just see if we can label them as legal under
temporary workers.
You cannot have it both ways. There either is border enforcement or
there is not. You cannot say to me we must put in a temporary worker
program because if it is not there we will have illegal immigration,
and then in the next breath--while thumbing your suspenders--say, and
by the way, we really have effective border control. If you have
effective border control, why then would you have illegal immigration
that necessitates you to say there are millions who live outside this
country who now must be allowed in? That is on top of the 12 million
people who, under this underlying bill, will be declared legal, to have
legal status.
Anyone who came across by December 31 of last year--across an ocean
or across a river or across any border--anyone who entered this country
by December 31 of last year would be told: You now have legal status in
this country and will be able to work.
My colleague, a while ago, asked a very important question: What
about the people in other parts of the world who thought this was all
on the level and there was an immigration system and they applied
through the quota system and have waited now 8 years to see if they
would be allowed to come to this country and they are near the top of
the list, but now they discover something that makes them feel as if
they made a big mistake? What they discovered is, while they waited all
of those years to get toward the top of the list under the legal
immigration system we have, with the quotas we have, they should have
snuck across the border on December 31 because those who did will have
been declared, by this piece of legislation, as legal. And those who
went through the process and have waited years--7 years, 8 years--and
are near the top of the list are told: You are just out of luck.
That does not make any sense to me. It just does not make any sense.
Let me describe some quotes from the week before last.

. . . this legislation has tough border security and tough
interior enforcement provisions.
Even if you have a secure border--we are hopeful of having
secure borders--it won't stop illegal immigration.

That is from a Senator on the floor of the Senate 2 weeks ago in
support of this bill.

The fact of the matter is, some workers will come here
illegally, or legally, one way or the other they come in.
That is where the temporary worker program comes in . . .
if we eliminate this program, you will have those individuals
that will crawl across the desert . . . or you can say, come
through the front door and you will be given the opportunity
to work. . . .

That is unbelievable. This is from the architects of the proposal
before the Senate who come here boasting it has real security on
America's borders, and then say: By the way, if we do not allow--in
addition to legalizing 12 million people who came here illegally--a
substantial additional number of people who do not now live here to
come and take American jobs, they will come anyway because they will
come as illegal immigrants--which suggests to me, at least, there is
not meaningful border protection or border security in this
legislation.
Let me describe for a moment the guest worker provision. These are
temporary workers--I do not know why you call them guests--but these
are temporary workers who would come in and take jobs at the low end of
the economic scale and, by and large, put downward pressure on income
for American workers. But here is how it would work.
It seems to me, you could not sit down and think of what kind of an
approach we could use to put together a guest worker provision and come
up with this sort of Rube Goldberg scheme. There is just no way you
could possibly put this together and believe it to be serious. Here is
what they say. In the case of the original proposal, which was 600,000
a year, and now it is going to be 200,000 a year, it will amount to 1.2
million over the first 10 years, and here is what they say: You can
come for the first 2 years; you can bring your family if you come for
the first 2 years. Then you have to go home for a year and take your
family with you, then come back for 2 more years. Then you leave again.
If you never brought your family to begin with, you can then come back
for 2 more years. So you can be here for a total of 6 years and you can
only have your family here for 2 years and you all have to leave this
country twice. That is unbelievable. Who on Earth can sit in a room and
construct that sort of nonsense?

Aside from the fact that we shouldn't have that provision in the
bill, we are told, this is the way it will work. How many believe you
will have 1,200,000 people come for 2 years, with their families, if
they wish, and then all of them will go home? Let's assume they all
went home, they get to go home for a year and come back for 2 years and
then again go home for a year and then come back for 2 years, how many
of you believe they are all going to leave? They are not.
Let me emphasize that the guest worker program has nothing to do with
agricultural work. These are nonagricultural workers. These will be in
manufacturing and in other areas.
Also, the guest worker program applies in sectors of our economy
where the vast majority of the jobs are done by U.S. citizens. That is
a fact. They say this is necessary because you can't find U.S. workers
to take these jobs. That is not the case. These jobs are not picking
strawberries. Those jobs are in the agricultural worker provisions. But
these temporary workers are in construction, manufacturing,
transportation, all of which have a wide majority of U.S. workers--80,
90 percent of the workers are U.S. workers. So don't tell me you can't
find U.S. workers to fill these jobs. In all of these cases--
construction, transportation, manufacturing--80 to 90 percent of them
are already U.S. workers.
What does immigration do to American workers? One of the points I
have made is this is a way of putting downward pressure on wages in our
country. This is from Professor George Borjas, John F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard. He says, on average, the impact of 1980
through 2000 immigration on U.S. wages, on average, it has reduced
wages by about 3.7 percent. I don't think there is much question that
if you bring in a lot of people through the back door to compete for
low-wage jobs, you are going to put downward pressure on wages. That is
a fact.
Here is an example of my concern and one of the things that persuades
me we ought to do better. Hurricane Katrina hit on the gulf coast and
we had a lot of cleanup to do. When Hurricane Katrina devastated that
gulf coast, FEMA and others began to let contracts to try to see how we
could create this cleanup, and here is what happened October 22, 2005:
Sam Smith was an electrician. He lost his house. He lost a lot during
the hurricane. His house was in the ninth ward. It was destroyed by
Hurricane Katrina. He was an electrician, age 55, who returned to the
city for the cleanup, the promise of a $22-an-hour wage, and guaranteed
work for 1 year, a qualified electrician. He lost his job within 3
weeks--within 3 weeks. Let me show you why these folks--Sam Smith lost
his house, lost his job, and here is who the subcontractor brings in.
Take a look at the barracks: Illegal workers brought in living in these
squalid conditions. Can you get them to work for less? Sure, you can.
Is it the right thing to do? No,

[[Page S6981]]

of course, it is not because an American worker who lost his house and
then lost his job--Sam Smith--deserves better. But that is a small
example of what we face with respect to the downward pressure on income
for those who work at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Now, the Wall Street Journal ran a very interesting story in January
of this year. It showed that in an area where there is a sudden drop in
the availability of illegal immigrants, the wages for U.S. workers then
rise. There was a series of raids by Federal immigration agents in
Stillmore, GA, and this is again quoting from the Wall Street Journal:

A local poultry processing company called Crider Inc. lost
75 percent of its 900 member work force when they were found
to be illegal aliens--

Illegal workers. The company apparently, according to the story, had
a pretty good idea that a good number of its workers had been illegal.

One worker--

It says in the story--

arrived at the plant in 2004. As she filled out an
application, she tried to use the Social Security number, a
tax payer identification number that started with the numeral
9. The company clerk stopped her and said valid Social
Security numbers never begin with a 9.

The clerk kept saying: Maybe you want to put down a 4 or a 6. So the
illegal immigrant wrote down a 6, and of course the application was
accepted.
After the raid, almost 75 percent of the workers were determined to
have been illegal immigrants and the company decided it needed to find
workers, so they decided to raise wages. An advertisement in the weekly
newspaper titled ``Increased Wages'' at Crider, starting at $7 to $9 an
hour. That was more than a dollar an hour above what the company had
paid many immigrant workers. It began offering free transportation from
nearby towns, free rooms in company-owned dormitories near the plant,
and for the first time in years, the company aggressively sought
workers from the area State-funded employment office, which is a key
avenue for low-skilled workers to find jobs.
Continuing again to describe the Wall Street Journal article, it
said: Hundreds of local workers, many of them minorities, accepted the
higher wages and were happy to take these jobs. Pretty soon this
Georgia company was apparently hiring back some additional illegal
immigrant workers who had been previously caught up in the raid. They
turned to a ``temporary labor provider'' who began to provide the
company with the same illegal immigrant workers who had been caught in
the first raid. So the immigration officials conducted a second raid
and the company then finally agreed to stop working with temporary
labor.

The point of this story is very simple: If you have substantial
amounts of illegal immigrant labor coming in, it puts downward pressure
on wages. Eliminate that illegal labor from the marketplace, and what
happens is you raise wages at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Robert Samuelson wrote an editorial in the Washington Post some while
ago. He said: It is simply a myth that the U.S. economy needs more poor
immigrants. He pointed out that in March the unemployment rate for
college graduates in this country was 1.8 percent. The unemployment
rate for the 13 million U.S. workers without a high school diploma is
over 7 percent. Those 13 million U.S. workers without a high school
diploma compete directly with the immigrant workers who come here
illegally and who do not have a high school diploma. That is what puts
downward pressure on wages in this country.
This is, as I indicated earlier, a very difficult issue, filled with
passion, and I understand that. I think there are a lot of immigrant
families living in this country, perhaps many who came here without
legal authorization, and many came here 5 years ago, 10, 15 years ago,
20 years ago. They have lived model lives. They have gone to school
here. They have gotten jobs. I understand all that. I think we should
deal with that in a sensitive way. There are many who should not be
expelled from this country. We are not going to round up 12 million
people and deport them. We are not going to do that. So we need to find
a way to deal appropriately with these issues. But that appropriate way
does not say anyone who came across illegally into this country on
December 31 of last year is deemed to have come here legally. That is
not the right approach. You can't do that.
Second, you should not be oblivious to the needs in this country of
the low-income workers. We have a whole lot of people today who got up
this morning who are going to work hard all day long and come home with
very little to show for it, in many cases two and three jobs. You know
the people. They are the ones who know about being second. The people
who know about secondhand, second mortgage, second job, second shift.
They are always in second place. They are the ones who have the least
opportunity in this country to get a decent wage because their
productivity goes up and their wage does not. As long as there are
employers who are able to bring in across the border--a border that
leaks like a sieve when it comes to illegal immigrants--as long as
there are employers who are willing to put downward pressure on income
for American workers, we are going to see people at the bottom of the
economic ladder in this country continuing to struggle. That is a fact.
The question is: Are we going to do something about it? When we deal
with immigration, we ought to do 2 things. First and foremost, we ought
to have a bill on the floor of the Senate that deals with border
security. You can't deal with this issue without stopping illegal
immigration. After all, we allow nearly a couple million people in this
country every single year under a legal system. But if you don't stop
at the border this unbelievable avalanche of illegal immigrants, you
don't have any hope of dealing with this issue. First and foremost, you
have to deal with border security. That ought to be the bill on the
floor of the Senate. Then, after we have dealt with border security, we
ought to deal with the question of the 12 million people who are here
without legal authorization. I would be the first to join those who say
let's be sensitive and let's be thoughtful about that. We are not going
to round up 12 million people. There are some who have been here a long
while and raised families here who have contributed to this country and
we need to understand that. That is a different issue than the issue of
border security. If we don't do border security and do it right, this
is another way to say: Let's provide amnesty this time for 12 million
people; we did it for 3 million people 12 years ago. By the way, let's
meet again. In fact, let's set a date right now. We will meet again in
10 years, if, in fact, those who wrote this bill were telling me what
they believe 2 weeks ago and that is if you don't have a temporary
worker program, you are going to have people come here illegally
anyway. What that means is they don't have real border security or the
least bit of confidence in the border security and their bill. That is
a fact.
There is a generous amount of discussion on the floor of this Senate
about issues that are completely devoid of the well-being and the best
interests of people in this country who work very hard and show very
little for it. I would love to see a long discussion on the floor of
this Senate about international trade and the $830 billion trade
deficit, and American companies being given a tax break by this
Congress and previous Congresses, American companies who shut their
manufacturing plant, fire all their workers, and ship their jobs to
Chinese or Bangladesh or Sri Lanka or Indonesia. They actually get a
tax break for doing it. I have tried four times to shut it down. I have
been unsuccessful. I would love to have a debate about that. In fact,
it is the same coin, just the reverse side. Shipping American jobs
overseas is the reverse side of the coin of bringing cheap labor
through the back door. That is a fact.
I understand where the impulse comes from. It comes from many large
enterprises, many big businesses who have convinced this Congress--or
too many in this Congress--that you can't fill jobs with Americans, you
have to bring in people from across the border or from around the
world. There aren't enough Americans to assume these jobs.
I don't believe that. I believe as long as you keep a constant supply
of cheap labor coming into this country, you keep downward pressure on
wages, and the person across the convenience store counter, the person
who made the bed

[[Page S6982]]

in your hotel room where you stayed last night, the person who works in
all of those jobs at the lower end of the economic ladder, they will
never, ever see a better income.
It took us nearly 10 years to pass an increase in the minimum wage in
this Congress. One of the reasons for that is the same influence in
this Chamber that exists in support of this bill. The biggest
businesses in this country didn't want an increase in the minimum wage
and they blocked it for nearly 10 years. The biggest interests in this
country that want to shift jobs overseas, want to continue to bring
cheap labor through the back door, and that is the genesis of this kind
of legislation.
I am not averse to resolving the status of the 12 million who are
here without legal authorization, but I wouldn't do it this way. I
certainly wouldn't point to December 31 and say: By the way, if you got
here last December 31, good for you, we declare you to be legal. That
is a thoughtless approach, not a thoughtful approach, to dealing with
these issues.
Mr. President, one final point: It is the case that I come to the
floor of the Senate on this issue concerned about a lot of people in
this country who work hard and get little for it. We have seen a
dramatic increase in the largesse of this country going to the top 1
percent of the income in this country--the top 1 percent, I should say,
of the people who earn income in this country have seen dramatic
increases in their income. Yet the bottom 20, bottom 40 percent, in
many cases, have seen that they have not been able to increase their
income at all.
I think an aggressive debate about how we improve the lot of all
Americans would be helpful. But we don't improve the lot of Americans
who have done the work they wanted to do, to go find a job and get
educated, we don't do their bidding and help them by deciding we are
going to keep downward pressure on their wages. This is exactly the
wrong approach.
I know the Chair and the ranking member are here. They wish to get to
the bill. I know there will be many amendments this week. Let me say
this. I would be very interested in voting for a piece of legislation
that I thought was on the level, that will provide real border
security. That is the first and most important need in dealing with
immigration. But 2 weeks ago, the very people who wrote this bill said
if we don't have temporary workers coming in under the temporary worker
program, they will come in illegally anyway.
I think that unmasks the fallacy of this bill. There is not border
protection here that will work. There has not been a will to enforce it
in the past. This legislation will continue to put downward pressure on
the income for American workers. That is exactly the wrong thing for us
to do.
I yield the floor.

____________________