[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 88 (Monday, June 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6982-S6994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). 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.
       Grassley-DeMint amendment No. 1166 (to amendment No. 1150), 
     to clarify that the revocation of an alien's visa or other 
     documentation is not subject to judicial review.
       Cornyn modified amendment No. 1184 (to amendment No. 1150), 
     to establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists, 
     and other criminals.
       Dodd-Menendez amendment No. 1199 (to amendment No. 1150), 
     to increase the number of green cards for parents of U.S. 
     citizens, to extend the duration of the new parent visitor 
     visa, and to make penalties imposed on individuals who 
     overstay such visas applicable only to such individuals.
       Menendez amendment No. 1194 (to Amendment No. 1150), to 
     modify the deadline for the family backlog reduction.
       McConnell amendment No. 1170 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require 
     individuals voting in person to present photo identification.
       Feingold amendment No. 1176 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     establish commissions to review the facts and circumstances 
     surrounding injustices suffered by European Americans, 
     European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World 
     War II.
       Durbin-Grassley amendment No. 1231 (to amendment No. 1150), 
     to ensure that employers make efforts to recruit American 
     workers.
       Sessions amendment No. 1234 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years 
     after passage of this act, by preventing the earned-income 
     tax credit, which is, according to the Congressional Research 
     Service, the largest antipoverty entitlement program of the 
     Federal Government, from being claimed by Y temporary workers 
     or illegal aliens given status by this act until they adjust 
     to legal permanent resident status.
       Sessions amendment No. 1235 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years 
     after passage of this act, by preventing the earned-income 
     tax credit, which is, according to the Congressional Research 
     Service, the largest antipoverty entitlement program of the 
     Federal Government, from being claimed by Y temporary workers 
     or illegal aliens given status by this act until they adjust 
     to legal permanent resident status.
       Lieberman amendment No. 1191 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     provide safeguards against faulty asylum procedures and to 
     improve conditions of detention.
       Cornyn (for Allard) amendment No. 1189 (to amendment No. 
     1150), to eliminate the preference given to people who 
     entered the United States illegally over people seeking to 
     enter the country legally in the merit-based evaluation 
     system for visas.
       Cornyn amendment No. 1250 (to amendment No. 1150), to 
     address documentation of employment and to make an amendment 
     with respect to mandatory disclosure of information.
       Salazar (for Clinton) modified amendment No. 1183 (to 
     amendment No. 1150), to reclassify the spouses and minor 
     children of lawful permanent residents as immediate 
     relatives.
       Salazar (for Obama-Menendez) amendment No. 1202 (to 
     Amendment No. 1150), to provide a date on which the authority 
     of the section relating to the increasing of American 
     competitiveness through a merit-based evaluation system for 
     immigrants shall be terminated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado is here. He and I 
are in the unenviable position on a Monday evening of managing this 
bill for a little while. Senator Salazar will speak on behalf of the 
majority. I do think it is the majority's desire that no amendments be 
laid down this evening. We would like to get Members to come to the 
floor first thing tomorrow morning to begin laying down amendments, and 
we will work out an order for the amendments, voice votes and rollcall 
votes, and advise Members of when those will occur tomorrow. We hope to 
do that later this evening.
  We wish to encourage our colleagues to bring their amendments to the 
floor and get them pending after this evening, so that we can work as 
much as possible this week in getting the bill concluded.
  I have several things I would like to say in response to the Senator 
from North Dakota.
  Let me yield at this point to the Senator from California.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, as we resume the immigration reform 
debate in the Senate this week, I am mindful of the fact that we have 
indeed come a very long way and that this Senate has spent a 
significant amount of time dealing with the issue of immigration. Last 
year, we were on the issue of immigration for over a month. This year, 
through the dialog and discussion of immigration, we have been working 
on this for the last several months. We were on the bill through last 
week and will continue to work on it this week. Hopefully, at the end 
of the week, we will be able to act on comprehensive immigration reform 
for our country.
  As I have often said, from my point of view, this is an issue of 
national security. It would be an abdication on the part of the Senate 
in Washington today if we were not able to move forward with 
comprehensive immigration reform. Since in the days after 9/11, it has 
become clearer and clearer to us that we need to secure the borders. 
Our legislation does, in fact, secure the borders.
  Secondly, the legislation makes sure that we move forward to enforce 
the laws of America. The legislation we have proposed is a tough law-
and-order piece of legislation that will make sure we have the 
resources, that the United States doesn't look away from the 
enforcement of our laws, and that we enforce them.
  Third, our legislation also deals with the economic realities that 
are so much of the immigration debate, the components of the economic 
realities relating to the guest worker program, as well as the 
agricultural job workers,

[[Page S6983]]

as well as other provisions of the bill that speak to the economic 
realities our country faces. I hope we will be able to move forward to 
the conclusion of this legislation this week.
  I note there was progress made on the legislation during the last 
week. We disposed of 13 of the 107 amendments that were filed. Seven of 
them were disposed of by rollcall vote and six by voice votes with 
unanimous consent. At this point, we have 14 amendments that are 
pending and that we will vote on. Some of them we hope to begin voting 
on tomorrow morning and work our way through some of the more difficult 
amendments in the afternoon.
  Let me also say at this point that as the President of the United 
States has spoken out around the country on the issue of immigration 
reform, he has taken a lot of heat for his position. A lot of people, 
both Democrats and Republicans, have taken a lot of heat on what we are 
trying to do with immigration reform. I think it is a responsibility of 
the Members of the Senate, the Members of the House of Representatives, 
and the President to do what is right for the country. There are some 
who, frankly, will argue that we ought not to do anything, that the 
answer to dealing with immigration reform is simply to not do anything 
for a year, 2, 3 or 4 years and to do what they call an enforcement-
only approach. We know, from a realistic point of view, that will not 
work; we will not be able to secure our borders or to enforce our laws 
within our country, and we would not be able to deal with the reality 
of the 12 million undocumented workers who toil in America today.
  So the comprehensive, bipartisan approach we have brought forward for 
consideration by the Senate is our best attempt at coming up with 
something that makes sense for comprehensive immigration legal reform 
in our country. I appreciate Senator Kyl and his leadership, the 
leadership of many on the Republican side of the aisle as well as those 
on the Democratic side, who have said we are going to get the solution.
  For those who say there is no solution to this issue or that we can 
wait 4 years to resolve it, they are wrong. We have it within our 
capacity and within the courage of the Members of this Chamber to get 
to a good conclusion on immigration for the United States.
  I yield the floor for my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Colorado, who 
frequently during the very difficult negotiations over the last several 
months was able, because of his legal skills and sunny personality, to 
bring contending factions together. I could not agree with him more 
that, as responsible public servants, we cannot allow this problem to 
continue to fester. Surely, working together in a bipartisan way, 
committed to fairness, justice, and a solution, we can come up with a 
resolution of the problem that will work, as well as anything might 
work.
  Our colleague from North Dakota said a moment ago that he disagreed 
with this bill and that we need to find a way, and he described pretty 
much what we are trying to find a way to do. He is right. Well, we have 
tried to find a way. It is just that not everybody agrees with exactly 
what we have come up with. One of the reasons for that is that if you 
are not part of the process of trying to reach a bipartisan consensus, 
you may have the idea you can get most of what you want without 
conceding anything to people who have a different point of view. The 
reality is that this is one of the most contentious, complex, emotional 
issues of our time, and no one is going to get 100 percent of what they 
think is the right solution. We are alleging we have to recognize that 
there are other points of view and that in order for us to be able to 
politically reach a decision, we might have to be supporting something 
that none of us like 100 percent, and that is certainly the case with 
me.
  I wish to explain this evening a couple of things that came from my 
discussions with constituents during the time of the Memorial Day 
recess and why I agree with the Senator from Colorado that this is the 
time to try to tackle this very tough issue. I was asked by a reporter 
why I was doing this, especially since I voted against the bill last 
year. The answer is that last year I didn't have an opportunity to 
participate in the construction of the legislation the Senate voted on. 
By the time it came to the Senate floor, the die was essentially cast. 
We had several amendments we offered; some were accepted and some were 
defeated. It was not possible at that point to substantially change the 
legislation. I thought it was a bad bill and I voted against it.
  It is also true that the situation in the United States, and in my 
State in particular, is getting worse every day. If you represent a 
State such as Arizona, on the border with Mexico, you simply cannot 
continue to ignore the problem, hoping it will go away or some magical 
solution will be developed that everyone can support. You realize you 
are going to have to get in there, fight like heck to do the best you 
can, and get the problems resolved, even though the solution is not 
going to be perfect from anyone's perspective.
  Here is what is happening every day: Thousands and thousands more 
illegal immigrants are pouring across the border. We wish to stop that. 
We have crime and violence increasing at an unprecedented rate, much of 
it due to illegal immigration. The drug smugglers are using the illegal 
immigrants as decoys to try to get the agents to chase the illegal 
immigrants so they can bring the drugs across. Because the Border 
Patrol is getting much more effective at controlling the border now, 
the violence is increasing because the people smuggling immigrants and 
drugs are finding their territory is now being contested by the Border 
Patrol. They are fighting back. They are fighting back with weapons, 
including large caliber weapons. This violence is a scourge not just at 
the border but on our society as a whole. We had a shootout on the 
freeway between Tucson and Phoenix, where two rival gangs were fighting 
over a load of illegal immigrants. Why? Because those illegal 
immigrants represented more potential income for whoever controlled 
them. They are essentially kidnapped and ransomed, and their families 
back in El Salvador, Mexico, or wherever they are from, are contacted 
and are told if they want their relatives to be freed, they have to pay 
additional money. As a result, a lot of money is paid and there is a 
lot of violence. The harm perpetrated on the immigrants--and, frankly, 
the harm perpetrated by some of the coyotes and smugglers and other 
criminals crossing the border--is infecting our State to an 
unacceptable degree.
  Last year, over 10 percent of the illegal immigrants coming across 
the border from Mexico were criminals, people wanted for serious 
crimes. These are not just nice people wanting to work in the U.S., 
though that is far and away the majority of them. It is a national 
security problem. We don't know how many of these people may have 
terrorist inclinations. Many come from countries that are on the 
terrorist list. Again, between 10 and 13 percent, approximately, we 
know to be criminals. As a result, we have to do something about the 
problem.
  I was mentioning to a reporter this morning--she said: What 
differentiates Arizona from a Midwestern or an Eastern State? Well, two 
things. The violence associated with this, first, has a deleterious 
effect, all the way from the people the violence is perpetrated on, to 
the court system which cannot handle it, to the jail system, to the 
social network that has to be established; all of this is enormously 
expensive and disruptive.
  Secondly, I said, you have the problem of the environmental 
degradation, with thousands of people--millions over the years--
crossing through into our State, and the impact on the desert 
environment has been dramatic. We have national monuments, parks, game 
refuges, military bases, Indian reservations, as well as private land 
and national forests right on the border.
  With this many people coming across with very little regard for the 
impact on the environment, they have left thousands of tons of trash. 
They have cut fences. They have let water run. They have let animals 
run loose. They have threatened, in some cases, to hurt individuals. 
They have burned property. They have trashed the properties, as I have 
said, and they cut literally thousands of trails which will take 
thousands of years to revegetate. That is the least of the problems. 
But one

[[Page S6984]]

can see it in my State of Arizona, and I think anybody who says we 
shouldn't try to do something to stop that simply has no sense of 
responsibility, especially if they are in a position to do something 
about it, as we in the Senate are. That is what has motivated me to do 
something about this problem as best I can.
  One can sit on the sidelines and complain about how bad the 
legislation is. One could say, as some of my colleagues have said, we 
need to find a way to do something to solve this or one can try to find 
a way and work with their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do 
their best to come up with a consensus that has a chance of passing and 
being signed into law. That is what those of us who have worked on this 
legislation have tried to do. Is it perfect? No way. Are there many 
provisions in it I don't like? Absolutely. Or that my friend Senator 
Salazar doesn't like? Absolutely. But that is the nature of attempting 
to reach a bipartisan consensus.
  I next wish to talk about what my constituents have told me in the 
last couple of weeks. It is very interesting that the same question 
keeps coming up over and over. In my campaign last year, it was the 
same question: Why do you think a new law will be enforced when the 
existing law is not being enforced? And that is a very good question 
because the truth is, neither the current administration nor the 
previous administration nor Congresses working with the administration 
nor the bureaucracies and people responsible for enforcing the law have 
done a good job of enforcing the law. One can argue that in some cases 
there hasn't even been a significant attempt to enforce the law. When 
we do attempt to enforce it, a lot of roadblocks are thrown in the way.
  So it is a legitimate question: Why do we think this new law might be 
enforced when the current law is not being adequately enforced? Unless 
you can answer that question, you can't really support some new 
proposal, as we have here.
  Before I answer the question, let me say something else. It is 
absolutely wrong to accuse the people who ask that question, who are 
skeptical of our ability to enforce a law and, therefore, skeptical of 
this new law, and call them bigots or restrictionists or nativists or 
leftwing or rightwing nuts or people who simply want to obstruct the 
process. The reality is, these are hard-working, tax-paying Americans 
who believe in the rule of law and are extraordinarily upset that their 
Government has let them down, and that is exactly what has happened--
their Government has let them down. They have a right to be angry, and 
they have a right to ask the question: Why should we believe a new law 
is going to be enforced when the existing law is not being enforced?
  Remember, I say to my colleagues, we work for them. They hired us. 
They pay our salary, and they pay the President's salary and all of the 
people who work in the executive branch. They have a right to answers 
to these questions rather than having people suggest that because they 
may oppose what we are proposing, somehow or another we think less of 
them. I think a great deal of them, especially those people who 
disagree with me agreeably, such as one of my constituents with whom I 
spoke today. She said: I trust you, but I don't like this new bill 
which has been proposed. I appreciate the question she asked, which was 
the same one: How are you going to enforce it? So let me try to answer 
that question.
  First of all, we understood that the experience of 20 years ago with 
the amnesty bill of 1986 demonstrated that unless we took enforcement 
seriously, we would end up with something unenforceable. So we tried to 
do that in this new legislation.
  The first thing we did was to ensure that several new actions will be 
done for enforcement before any of the benefits accrue to people who 
are here illegally. That is a way of ensuring that at least some 
enforcement gets done. What did we do? We applied triggers. We said 
that until the following things are done, no temporary visa will be 
issued to an illegal immigrant in the United States. What are those 
things?
  No. 1, we are going to increase the numbers of the Border Patrol. By 
the way, this isn't the end of it. We said 18,000, and an amendment has 
been adopted that says take it to 20,000, and that is great, and we 
will need more than that. Do you know what 20,000 Border Patrol agents 
represents, Mr. President? It is half the New York City Police 
Department. So if they have about 39,000 people on the New York City 
Police Department--and I don't know how many square miles that is, but 
we have 2,000 miles of border to Mexico, not to mention our northern 
border--I think one can appreciate probably 20,000 Border Patrol agents 
is not enough, but we at least get to that mark before any of those 
triggers are pulled.
  We do the same thing with fencing. We have authorized 700 miles of 
fencing. We are going to have at least 371 of those miles completed 
before the trigger is pulled. We are going to have over 300 miles of 
vehicle barriers.
  Incidentally, on fencing, there is a rumor, a myth out in the land 
that we only have 2 miles of fencing. We have over 80 miles of fencing, 
and it is being built several miles a day. I have seen it being built 
on the border near Yuma, AZ.
  We will have something like 70 more radars, maybe more than that. I 
have forgotten the exact number. We will have four unmanned aerial 
vehicles. We have over 26,000 detention spaces, so there will be no 
more catch and release of people who are detained.
  These are some of the items which will actually have to be done 
before the trigger is pulled and a visa can be issued to an illegal 
immigrant, even a temporary visa.
  In addition to that, we will have up and operating and ready to go 
the electronic employee verification system, or so-called EEVS. This 
was lacking in the bill in 1986. We had a requirement that employers 
check to verify the eligibility of employees. Mr. President, do you 
know what they had to check? A driver's license and Social Security 
card, which are counterfeitable and I think cost 30 to 35 bucks apiece, 
or about $60 for the two of them, and employers can't hold them up to 
the light and say: This is a counterfeit and that one is real. We 
cannot expect employers to do that, as a result of which they suspect a 
lot of the people on their payroll are illegal immigrants, but they 
have the documents to prove they are legal, and the U.S. Government 
very seldom comes to audit them to check to see whether the people they 
hired are legal. Of course, we preclude them from asking insensitive 
questions that might violate their legal rights, such as: Are you an 
illegal immigrant? So employers are stuck in a catch-22 situation. That 
is the situation today.

  For those who say we don't like the bill, I say, fine, do you want 
the situation where today we have a totally unenforceable employee 
verification system or would you like to see something like that which 
is in this bill put into place? It is very effective. It will require 
the Government to do the validating, not the employer.
  The Government will have two different items to validate. No. 1, it 
is going to clean up the Social Security system and the database, and 
when an individual applies for a job, that database is going to be 
accessed with algorithms developed to ensure that not only do you 
ensure that the number which has been issued is a valid number issued 
to that person on that date but that it hasn't been used by somebody 
else for employment purposes or the individual hasn't died and so 
forth. So they can determine whether the Social Security eligibility is 
real.
  Second, you can determine who the individual is. There is a variety 
of ways to do this. If you have a U.S. passport, that is the gold 
standard because the information is typed in and the real passport that 
was issued will then be displayed on the computer screen of the 
employer. All the employer has to do is match that with the passport 
the prospective employee has given them and determine if they are 
identical. If the photographs are identical, it looks like the 
individual in the photograph, that is him. If they are not, then that 
situation is noted and the individual cannot be employed. If it is a 
driver's license, a REAL ID Act driver's license, it is the same 
thing--the photograph has to match.
  There is a system, in other words, that will be put into place that 
this time will not rely on the employer trying to determine the 
validity of the

[[Page S6985]]

document but, rather, having that document checked through the database 
of the U.S. Government or States in the case of driver's licenses or 
birth certificates, and the employer is able to verify that, in fact, 
is a proper document.
  There are very difficult sanctions. If an employer violates this law 
more than once, it is a $75,000 fine, as opposed to $250 for a 
violation today. This is serious. And I think employers want a legal 
way that doesn't impose too big a burden on them to ensure the people 
they hire are, in fact, eligible to be hired. I think they will 
appreciate the speed and the ease with which this new system will allow 
them to determine eligibility of their employees. This will work so 
that the combination of strong border security and the inability to get 
a job if you are here illegally will reduce, we believe right down to 
the bare minimum, the number of people who shouldn't be here but are. 
That bare minimum, of course, is the criminal element--absconders, gang 
or terrorist members, and those people who have committed crimes. They 
are here today, and it is going to be much easier to find and catch 
them tomorrow if they are the ones on which we can concentrate. Instead 
of having to concentrate on 100 percent of the people who are here 
illegally, we can focus on that 15 percent or so we really want to 
catch. This is the second way in which we have anticipated we need to 
enforce the law.
  Third, amazingly, in the 1986 law, you couldn't even prosecute 
someone for fraud if they told you they had been here for longer than 3 
years or 5 years and it turns out they hadn't been. Last year, there 
was an attempt to amend the bill to at least allow people who made such 
fraudulent claims to be prosecuted, and that amendment failed. Needless 
to say, the ability to prosecute fraud is in this legislation.
  There are many other ways in which we have sought to ensure this 
legislation, unlike the past, will be enforced.
  I conclude this part of my remarks with this statement. Let me answer 
in another way the question about whether the law will be enforced. If 
you are unhappy with the status quo, if you don't like the way things 
are today, then why would you oppose a change that at least offers the 
prospect that the new law will be enforced when we know the old law is 
not being adequately enforced? If you say: Let's just enforce the 
current law, I ask you, with regard to the employee verification system 
I just discussed, how can you enforce a law that is inherently not 
enforceable? You can't prosecute for fraud, you can't check the status 
of prospective employees, you cannot hold an employer liable because 
you can't prove that person knowingly hired the illegal immigrant. You 
can't enforce the existing law at the workplace. We have to change the 
law. That is the whole point of this legislation. I think you have to 
argue that the status quo is better than what this bill offers if you 
are going to oppose the bill.
  Let me mention two other points since I see my colleague from New 
Mexico is in the Chamber. Like me, he appreciates the impact on our 
society of illegal immigrants who are imposing themselves, who are 
using social services, who are stressing our court system, and I 
appreciate the fact that the senior Senator from New Mexico has offered 
legislation to add judges so that we at least have enough judges to 
handle the cases that come before the courts.
  A lot of our colleagues say that the problem with this legislation 
and the only reason they can't go along with it is that it represents 
amnesty. Of course, everybody has a different definition of what 
amnesty is. I don't think it is amnesty. It seems to me that arguing 
over whether something is amnesty or isn't amnesty is a dead-end 
argument.
  The question is, What would you like to see done so it isn't what you 
don't like? I argue this: If merely allowing the illegal immigrants to 
stay here is amnesty, which is what a lot of my constituents have said 
they believe, then the status quo is amnesty because we are letting 
them stay here and we are not doing anything about it. So if your 
definition is the mere fact you allow them to stay here is amnesty, 
then I say, fine, you, too, are for amnesty. I am just trying to do 
something about it.
  What are we trying to do about it? The first thing is that what we 
want to do is to ensure the people who came here illegally will 
appreciate that they did something wrong, they are going to have to pay 
a penalty for it, and for them to continue to stay, they are going to 
have to meet serious conditions of probation. They are going to have to 
say: I came here illegally; if you find I committed fraud or if you 
find I am ineligible for the benefits of this program in any way, I 
waive my right to contest that, in effect, and I am going to pay a 
fine, and I am going to be on probation, I am going to have to not 
violate the law, I am going to have to continue to work, if you are the 
head of the household. If you violate any of those conditions, you are 
going to have to go home, and so are your family members. If you want 
to stay here permanently, you are going to have to go home and apply 
like everyone else. You are going to have to get in line. You are going 
to have to pass an English test. And that is all simply to get a green 
card. After that, of course, if you want to be a citizen, you have to 
wait the 5 years and do the things necessary to become a citizen. That 
deals with the second point.

  To me, one of the definitions of amnesty is this automatic path to 
citizenship. We have done away with that. In addition, we have 
established a merit-based system for green cards for those people who 
want them who are here illegally.
  Finally, one of the benefits of amnesty is the ability to chain 
migrate your family. We have eliminated that in this legislation. You 
no longer have the right to chain migrate your family. By that, what we 
are talking about is to bring in the nonnuclear family, someone other 
than your spouse and minor children, simply because you are a green 
card holder or a U.S. citizen. We say: no longer. When this bill goes 
into effect, once the current backlog is cleared up, there will be no 
more chain migration of this nonnuclear family.
  Incidentally, there was an error made in the description of our bill 
by one of our colleagues. The visa that will be issued to people 
illegally here today does not allow chain migration. In fact, it 
doesn't even allow the migration of your nuclear family, your spouse, 
or minor children, if they are in another country.
  The last thing I want to talk about is the matter of the amendments 
we will have to deal with during the course of this next week. There 
will be a lot of amendments, some of which improve the bill. I know the 
Presiding Officer has an amendment which I think is a good amendment, 
and it doesn't in any way disrupt the basic agreement that was reached 
on a bipartisan basis but strengthens the bill. There will be many 
other amendments that either do or do not strengthen the bill, and we 
will have a chance to vote on them. We also understand there are some 
amendments which go right to the heart of the negotiation that 
occurred, to the agreements that were reached, and there are some 
Members in the Senate who, frankly, want to see them adopted because 
they do not want to see the bill passed. They know they are killer 
amendments, and they have been so dubbed, and I wish to illustrate what 
I mean.
  We have a temporary worker program. We worked very hard to make sure 
it gave people an opportunity to come here temporarily to work and to 
return home. Any amendment that would allow them to morph into legal 
permanent residency and citizenship would convert that from a temporary 
worker program to a permanent worker program, and that would violate 
the basic understanding of the bill. We already have a permanent worker 
program.
  Now, speaking of that, we were very careful to try to balance that 
permanent worker program, the so-called green card program, legal 
permanent residence, based on worker visas. We carefully calibrated 
that with family visas and the need for high skills versus low skills. 
We developed a merit-based system that establishes points for that and 
allocated the different visas for different groups. It would be a deal 
killer, a killer amendment, a breaking of the bipartisan agreement here 
if that is substantially altered. There is an amendment out there that 
would in fact substantially alter it by increasing by something

[[Page S6986]]

like 300,000 per year the number of green cards that would be provided 
for employers to dole out to their prospective employees, as a 
condition of employment, basically. This is not a green card applied 
for by the individual. This is a green card the employer applies for 
and says to a prospective employee from another country, if you will 
come work for me for 5 years and take substandard wages, I will give 
you a green card at the end of that 5-year period.
  I remember studying in school the concept of indentured servitude. 
You come and work off your debt for 7 years and then you get to stay in 
the United States of America. It is not the same thing, but it is 
analogous. What we say here is we are going to make visas available for 
both the employee to apply for and the employer, and we are going to 
substantially increase the number of those visas. But we are not going 
to substantially increase it and then add another 300,000 on top of 
that. That would break the deal.
  Moreover, that particular amendment goes right to the heart of some 
other reforms, reforms that I support, that the Presiding Officer 
supports, and would, frankly, undercut what we have tried to do here in 
terms of worker rights. To be real clear about it, we already have 
150,000 green cards per year, most of which will go to skilled workers 
because of the merit-based system we have. In addition to that, we have 
created another 107,000 per year to clear up what we believe is a 5-
year backlog for those high-skilled workers, those so-called H-1B 
workers, and we add another 240,000 at the end of 8 years when they are 
no longer needed for family purposes. We have a merit-based system, as 
I said, that will pretty much ensure these green cards go to the best 
and the brightest, the high-skilled people who will bring with them the 
kinds of things we need to compete in the global economy.
  Another killer amendment has to do with the nonnuclear family 
migration, the so-called chain migration. We have decided that, even 
though some people would literally never get to this country with a 
family visa because the backlog is too long, we are going to allow 
about 4 million people to come into the country over an 8-year period. 
This is extraordinarily generous, and let me mention one country where 
I believe the backlog for our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is 176 
years. You cannot argue that you have a reasonable expectation you are 
ever going to get a visa granted and get to the United States and have 
anything left of your life if the timelag before you could get it is 
176 years. It is also long for many other countries. Nevertheless, we 
said if you had applied by May of 2005, you would be able to come into 
this country within an 8-year period. We had originally said 2004, 
because I believe in March of that year, the Department of Homeland 
Security sent a letter to everybody who was pending and said, look, we 
have stopped processing these applications because there is no 
reasonable expectation we are ever going to get to them. So if you 
applied after that date, especially if you are from one of these 
countries that has a long backlog, forget it, you are never going to 
make it here. Nevertheless, we said, we will allow you to come in 
during this 8-year period.
  Well, there is an amendment that would move that date from May of 
2005--remember, we moved it from March of 2004, in the spirit of 
compromise, to May of 2005--this amendment would move it 2 years 
forward to today, basically, for another over 650,000 applicants. These 
people have no reasonable expectation of ever coming into the country.

  Finally, there is an amendment that deals with spouses and children. 
Both legal permanent residents and citizens are enabled to bring in 
spouses and legal children. If you are a legal permanent resident, 
there is a cap and there is some waiting period. It is not substantial, 
but it is a waiting period. This amendment would eliminate that 
difference between citizenship and legal permanent residence for the 
sake of bringing the nuclear family in. I think it is very important 
for us to retain the distinction. Citizenship has to mean something in 
this country, and one of the key things we think it means is being able 
to bring your spouse and minor children into the country when you want 
to do that.
  My point in discussing these amendments is to make the point that as 
anxious as I am to solve this problem by getting legislation passed 
that we believe does offer the opportunity for enforcement to end 
illegal immigration, to end the employment of illegal immigrants, and 
to ensure that from now on people who are here are playing by our rules 
rather than someone else's rules, as much as we want to ensure this 
legislation can pass the Senate and the House and be signed by the 
President, we also appreciate the fact that it represents a consensus 
based upon an extraordinary amount of negotiation.
  I go back to the point I made starting out. Nobody got 100 percent of 
what they wanted. We all made sacrifices in the sense that we agreed to 
things we didn't like. The end result was a bipartisan bill which I 
believe can pass. But if any of these other amendments are adopted, 
then many of us have made the commitment that we will no longer support 
the legislation. I certainly will not support the legislation, and I 
would do everything I could to get it defeated.
  It seems to me unless there is a bipartisan consensus that represents 
a balanced bill that can pass both Houses and that the President will 
sign, we are simply engaging in an exercise in futility, and perhaps 
worse. So I want my colleagues to appreciate the fact that I am very 
anxious to support some of their amendments, that I will oppose others, 
but they need to come down and get their amendments pending so we can 
get them voted on.
  Again, there are some things which go right to the heart of this 
bargain, and many of the people who will support those amendments know 
that. I am sad to say one of the reasons they will be supported by some 
Members is precisely to kill the bill. I don't want to see the bill 
killed. I want to see the bill passed. As a result, I hope my 
colleagues will keep this in mind when we consider these various 
amendments.
  Mr. President, I think there are other people here now who wish to 
speak to the bill, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the 
leadership Senator Kyl has given to this Senate in so many different 
areas. I am normally one of his righthand guys, but on this deal, I 
can't be with him.
  I don't agree that a small group of Senators can meet in closed 
meetings and reach a compromise nobody can amend. In fact, Senator 
Bingaman noted earlier today that he offered an amendment to change the 
temporary guest worker program. They said that amendment would be a 
deal breaker. But it passed with 74 votes. So we obviously ought to be 
able to amend this thing, and hopefully we will.
  I will speak briefly, because my colleague from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, is here, and I will yield to him in a moment, but I will add 
a couple of things.
  I do believe we need effective, comprehensive immigration reform 
legislation, and I support that. I was hopeful the legislation that was 
being discussed was based on the principles contained in the talking 
points utilized by members of the President's Cabinet and those 
Senators who were meeting to discuss the bill. Those principles struck 
me as being far preferable to last year's legislation, and I said 
publicly I was most intrigued by it.
  I must say, however, that on reading the fine print in this 
legislation, I have concluded the legislation does not effectuate the 
promises and principles announced beforehand.
  For example, they said this year we would have an effective trigger; 
trigger being proof that enforcement measures were in place before any 
amnesty would occur. That was defeated last year. The people this year 
assured us it would be in there. But reading the language on the 
trigger, it has very little teeth in it. It is trigger locked. It is 
not an effective trigger, and I have demonstrated that in earlier 
speeches.
  They promised we would end chain migration and move to a merit system 
of immigration. However, for the next 8 years, the number of people 
entering under the chain-migration, nonskill-based status will increase 
dramatically, almost three times the current rate. Indeed, only after 8 
years will the merit-based system have the kind of teeth I had hoped it 
would have immediately. But I would note that Senator

[[Page S6987]]

Obama has indicated he is filing an amendment to sunset the merit 
system and eliminate even that.
  The temporary worker program gives me great concern because I am 
afraid it will not work. I also note it allows spouses and parents to 
visit. A spouse can visit a worker even if that spouse indicates they 
do not intend to stay in the country they are living in--the foreign 
country. So I am worried about how that will work. Who is going to 
apprehend those who don't return?
  People who came into our country in the last 5 months, who got past 
the National Guard that President Bush called out, who got into our 
country December 31 of last year, will be given permanent status in 
this country. Those who are members of MS-13, an international gang, if 
they say they are a member of that gang but that they renounce the 
principles of that gang, will be able to stay and be given citizenship 
in the United States.
  They said the bill would have greater emphasis on assimilation, 
because we all agree we need to do a better job of assimilating those 
who come to our country. I believe it is only mentioned once in the 
bill, and that is at page 300-something of the bill--almost the last 
page of the bill.
  They said we would emphasize English much more. But under the bill, 
those who would be given amnesty won't have to produce any proof of 
English skills for 12 years.
  They said there would not be a benefit of welfare. But the earned 
income tax credit will be given to people immediately upon their being 
given lawful status in the country; not a Z visa, even, but the 
probationary status. An average recipient of the earned income tax 
credit gets about $1,800 a year, and that is not chickenfeed. It was 
designed to encourage work by working Americans, not to provide an 
incentive for people to come to our country illegally. The document 
that is required to enable you to prove you were here before January 1 
of this year is simply an affidavit by someone. I submit that the 
Department of Homeland Security is not going to be able to check on 
those affidavits and we are going to have massive fraud. Indeed, most 
people, probably, who are working here today carry false documents of 
some kind or another. It certainly would not be difficult at all to 
obtain a false affidavit in that regard.

  I have listed 20 loopholes or objections I have identified with the 
bill--actually, 25, and Senator Bingaman pointed out another one 
earlier today that we did not include in our list. There are many 
discrete, specific defects in the legislation. But the problem is that 
the defects and mindset behind the legislation indicate a lack of 
commitment to creating a lawfully enforceable system of immigration and 
indicate a lack of commitment to moving to a more skill-based system 
like Canada's--which system, I note to my colleagues, the Canadian 
system, was favorably reviewed in a USA Today editorial yesterday. That 
absolutely should be a part of this legislation.
  I salute my colleagues for working to move to a more merit-based 
system and for taking some steps that would be better from the 
enforcement side, but I have to say I believe it is not sufficient. I 
wish it were. It is not. We need immigration in America. We are a 
nation of immigrants. I do not oppose immigration. I just think we 
ought to create a system that serves our national interest, that allows 
talented people from around the world to apply and come here, those 
persons most likely to flourish in our system. It should serve our 
national interests and should be effective. I am afraid this bill is 
not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Alabama for 
expediting his remarks. I did not get to hear all the speeches this 
afternoon, including the speech of my good friend Senator Salazar from 
my neighboring State of Colorado or even all of the speech made today 
by my very good friend from another of my adjoining States, Arizona, 
Senator Kyl. But I heard a little bit of both of their remarks.
  I came to the floor after hearing some of the speech of Senator Kyl 
to tell him how I analyzed his work on this bill.
  Senator Kyl, I have known you ever since you have been in the Senate. 
As luck would have it, I can call you my junior. That is only because 
New Mexicans sent me up here a few years before Arizonans sent you. In 
no other respect would the use of that word be appropriate because you 
are a terrific Senator. It would have been a shame if you would have 
lost this opportunity, with your talent and your ability to convince 
people, to get the United States of America a new immigration bill.
  I say to my junior friend from the State of Colorado, the same goes 
for you as far as your work on this bill. The same goes for Senator 
Kennedy and the other Senators who were in the group who worked 
together on this bill. But since the two of you are here, I will use 
you as an example of all of those who decided they had enough and they 
were going to work until they had a bill.
  Let me say that we are not elected to the Senate to handle easy 
problems, nor are we elected to the Senate to let other people handle 
problems and then argue that they didn't do it right, so we can be on 
the defensive all the time and argue against anybody who is trying to 
do something for the country. We were not elected for that. It happens 
that we have parties, so most of the time we choose up sides on bills 
and amendments.
  Let me suggest to the American people who do not understand it--and I 
don't say that in any pejorative sense--something good has transpired 
in the Senate with this bill. One of the worst problems we have is an 
immigration system that does not work. If there is anybody in the 
United States who believes the borders of this great, marvelous country 
are being policed so we can determine who comes in and who goes out--
more significantly who comes in, of course--if they think we can do 
that, then they are living in another world. They are not talking about 
their home country because we have little border control yet. We know 
it in the State of Arizona, my State's neighbor, by just going out and 
looking. We know it in New Mexico because our Border Patrol agents tell 
us all the time that thousands of illegal immigrants have come across 
and thousands more are coming across and we can't stop them. That is 
because we do not have a comprehensive system, so we get them, they are 
sent home, and they come back. We arrest them inside the country, we 
tell them to come to court in 2 or 3 days, they never show up, and we 
never find them again.
  The truth is, this great country has about reached a point where we 
have lost total control of our borders as to citizenry, occupancy, who 
raises their children here and what influence they have over our 
society. We have come very close to living under no border or 
immigration law.
  For anybody who says to the Senate or to a Senator, either a media 
person or citizen, ``we do not want this bill because we don't like 
this or that piece of it,'' let me ask them the question, Do you like 
what we have? Is that not the right question to ask, Senator? Do you 
like what we have? If you don't like what we are trying to do after 
months of work, do you really know what you are advocating for when you 
tell us don't do it and fax our offices and call us long distance? What 
you are asking us to do is do nothing.
  We don't have anything effective. If you want us to not pass a law, 
you want us to do nothing and you want to leave us with nothing. You 
want to leave the people of the country open as to who can come to the 
U.S., how many can come, what they can do when they get here and what 
kind of opportunity we give them. Right now we do not know who they 
are, where they come from, or why we are doing what we are doing. That 
is exactly where we are today.
  I say to Senators who will come here in the next few days and say: I 
looked at this bill with my staff, and they told me I had to have an 
amendment--I urge you be very serious about amendments. I know, better 
than most, you can make an argument that a few Senators, no matter how 
well motivated or how good they are, when they get together for months 
upon months and write a bill, they have not given everybody a chance, 
in the institution called the Senate, to participate. But I suggest if 
those people--led by Senator

[[Page S6988]]

Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Specter and others--if they have produced 
something that is substantially better than our current laws, do you 
think there is anything else that is apt to make it through the 
Congress if this bill dies? Are we really going to go through this 
effort again next year? I think we are going to have to wait until 
there is a whole new group of Senators before we write another bill. So 
before you insist you are going to offer an amendment, even if it kills 
this bill, so you can exercise your senatorial rights, then I urge you 
give some serious thought to the proposition: Just so you can say you 
offered an amendment, do you want to kill a bill which is dramatically 
better than the laws we are living with, without question? Do you want 
to kill a bill about which many people who have analyzed it carefully 
say that if we provide sufficient resources, sufficient manpower, the 
strength we need and the law enforcement we need, it has a chance of 
securing our borders so people cannot come in unless they are supposed 
to?
  What we are living under has no chance of providing the security we 
need. The laws cannot be enforced. The laws are not currently, with 
court interpretations and the like, endowed with the capacity to be 
enforced. The current law of the land cannot be enforced in a way that 
will sustain our borders. That is just not possible. So don't wish for 
us nothing. Don't say: Enforce our current law. There is no good law to 
be enforced. We have a bushel basket full of loopholes and of 
opportunities for people to obfuscate and get out of trouble through 
rules and regulations, so much so that our Border Patrol is so 
frustrated that they have been for years crying out to us to give them 
help. When they say help, they always say: Change the law. Fix the law 
so we can do what you want us to do. This is our chance to do that.
  I went home for recess like most Senators. I did not travel overseas; 
I went home. I spoke at three editorial boards in three cities, and I 
then spoke to a couple of groups, such as the Hispano Chamber in 
Albuquerque, about 50 to 100 men or women were there. When I had time 
to answer questions on this bill and to explain its principal 
provisions, nobody stood up to challenge me, to say that it was bad, 
except one person who insisted that I was defining amnesty wrong. I 
ended up in an argument. Maybe I should not have done that, saying ``it 
doesn't matter whether it is amnesty, here are the words describing 
what the bill does. Is there something wrong with this accumulation of 
words we put in the bill that says when somebody can stay here if they 
have worked for at least 13 years and then they apply for citizenship? 
Is there anything wrong with those words? If there is not, then we 
shouldn't worry about amnesty, whether we define it that way or not.''
  I believe there is no general amnesty in this bill. The minimum time 
you must be here to become a citizen is 13 years under 2 different 
cards, a Z card and a green card. You must spend 13 years being a good 
resident--not counting how much time you spent here before getting a Z 
card--and paying fines along the way for violating the law, having to 
know sufficient English and sufficient civics. Is that amnesty? I 
thought amnesty was more like a gift. There is no gift here. You have 
to work and you have to learn and you have to pass an exam and you have 
to pay fines.
  And the first thing undocumented workers have to do is get up from 
where they are, half incognito, and turn themselves in and have enough 
trust that the Federal Government is going to treat you right. That is 
the first thing the bill is going to do after securing the border. A 
lot of people are going to wonder about that. You are going to find 
out. We are going to put plenty of resources into that, going out and 
asking them to turn themselves in. Is that right? That is one of the 
first actions in this bill. Go to where they hide out, because they are 
illegal aliens, and ask them to come forward. They are not going to be 
illegal anymore. They are going to get a legal work card.
  I worked on the immigration bill last year. It was not nearly as good 
as this bill. I have not worked as long as those who have worked the 
longest this year. I have worked long enough to be sure I have 
something here that I can tell my constituents is much better than what 
we have now. In fact, this bill has a real chance of controlling the 
borders. Once we have it passed, if we do not throw up our hands and 
abandon it but keep with it and enforce it and put the money into the 
equipment needed to do the work required, if we do all those things 
when we have this bill finished--and we are going to have to do that--
we will have legislation we can be proud of. If we do that, I will be 
glad to say, in this year, in this month, I worked on and helped pass a 
bill in spite of many people being against it in the media--we passed 
something good for the American people from a set of facts that were 
difficult, from laws we had to amend, which had many special interests 
that made them difficult to change.
  I will be saying in that month, this month, this year: We got it 
done. I will be very happy and very proud in the meantime, for those 
who are working on the bill--I have a lot of other things on other 
committees--but I stand ready to be of help wherever I can during the 
week. You can put me down as one who is ready to help.
  Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, first I want to make a comment about the 
process that has been underway on immigration. We sometimes think about 
what is the most important thing we are given as Senators. What is the 
privilege we get to exercise on behalf of the American people in 
representing our States? We get to work on issues of enormous 
importance to civilization, to the United States, and to our respective 
States in this country. But one of the decisions that is made here by 
the majority leader is what kind of time is going to be allocated on 
what kinds of issues.
  Well, this majority leader, Senator Reid, said 2 months ago he would 
set aside May, some time in May, for us to deal with the issue of 
immigration. He did the right thing, because what he did is he held 
peoples' feet to the fire to deal with this issue that some people 
would rather not deal with at all. He said for us in the Senate, the 
100 Members of this Chamber would be spending a significant amount of 
time in May and now into June dealing with this issue. But the amount 
of time we spent working on the issue of immigration goes far beyond 
the current effort we have on this bill.
  Last year, through the Judiciary Committee hearing that lasted for 
weeks prior to a markup and then for almost a month here on the floor 
of the Senate, we labored hard day and night to come up with a 
comprehensive immigration reform package. When all was said and done, 
some 35 votes were cast on that legislation, and there were over 60 
votes in the Senate to move forward with comprehensive immigration 
reform. That was a month of struggle in this Chamber, trying to come up 
with a solution to deal with the very significant challenges we face 
with immigration.
  The group that has been working with Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, 
Senator Specter, the Presiding Officer, and others who have spent so 
much time in trying to come up with a comprehensive bill that would 
allow us to deal with this issue and move it forward worked very hard 
over the last several months. So we have been on this legislation for a 
very long time. We were on this legislation for all of last week. There 
were 13 amendments that were made to the legislation during the week we 
had on this legislation last week.
  At this point there are 14 pending amendments. We hope we will begin 
to vote on those amendments tomorrow morning and will continue through 
the rest of the day and through the rest of the week. It is my hope at 
the end of the day we will have an immigration reform package that is 
adopted by the Senate, and will then move forward.
  I wish to make a comment on one of the attacks that has been made on 
this legislation by many Members around the country where they said 
what we are trying to do is give people amnesty. Well, when I looked up 
the definition of amnesty in the Merriam Webster on-line dictionary, it 
says essentially amnesty is a pardon. Amnesty is a pardon.
  This is not a pardon. What we are calling for in this legislation is 
a far

[[Page S6989]]

cry from a pardon. This is a probationary status people are being put 
in.
  I come from a law enforcement background. I spent 6 years as attorney 
general. I helped put thousands and thousands of people behind bars. I 
prosecuted gangs and white-collar crime, and made sure that murderers 
were serving their time in the prisons of my State. That is a part of 
what I did as a prosecutor, as a member of law enforcement.
  In law enforcement we say: If you do the crime, you got to do the 
time; you got to pay the fine. Well, what is it we are asking people 
here to do? We are asking them to do a tremendous amount of work and 
activity to demonstrate that they are, in fact, entitled at some point 
down the road to a green card.
  The first thing you are asking people to do under the new program we 
are setting up is that they have to come out of the shadows into the 
sunlight of society, and to register with the Government. That is not a 
requirement we make of any citizen in the United States, but it is a 
requirement we are going to make to have undocumented workers here in 
America, that they have to register with the Government and they have 
to do that and then go into a probationary period that is going to last 
for a very long period of time.
  At the time they register, they have to pay a fine. Now, it is not a 
$5 fine, a $25 fine, a little slap on the wrist. You are talking about 
an accumulation of fines and processing fees and impact fees that at 
the end of the day is probably going to be somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $7,500 to $8,000 per person.
  At the time they pay their penalty, they have to pay $1,000. After 
they pay their penalty of $1,000, they have to pay $1,500 dollars to 
get their Z card application, and then 3 years later they have to pay 
another $1,500, at 8 years of going through this purgatory where we 
require them during those 8 years to take English classes, to make sure 
they stay out of trouble with the law, to make sure they are gainfully 
employed. If they survive that 8-year period of purgatory, at that 
period of time they have to pay an additional amount of money in order 
to get their green card.
  When you add up all of that money they have to pay, you are talking 
about somewhere in the neighborhood of $8,000. That is not amnesty. 
That is people having to pay a very significant fine and take on a very 
significant number of affirmative actions that ultimately, after 
waiting for a period of 8 years, might qualify them to get a green 
card.
  For those who cry the word ``amnesty'' when we talk about immigration 
reform, they are continuing to play into the hands of those who want to 
make a political debate with no end. They believe if you label people 
who are for comprehensive immigration reform with the word ``amnesty,'' 
somehow it will never get done. That is the do-nothing crowd. In fact, 
that is what happened in the House of Representatives last year, when 
in this body, in a bipartisan vote, Democrats and Republicans coming 
together, passed comprehensive immigration reform. The other body, the 
House of Representatives, then decided they did not want to take it 
up--not because of the national security issues that are at stake; not 
because of the economic security issues which might be dealt with in 
this legislation; not because of the human and moral issues which are 
at stake in the immigration reform debate, they did not want to take it 
up in the House of Representatives, the then Republican majority did 
not want to take it up in the House of Representatives simply because 
of the fact that they thought it was their trump card to keep the 
majority in the November elections.
  So those who parade around the country with the shrill cry of 
``amnesty'' are doing the American people a great disservice. What they 
are doing is they are playing politics and having politics trump the 
national interests. The national interests, which we are trying to 
serve in this legislation, to me are important, fundamental, simple, 
but they are interests which we cannot escape as the leaders of this 
country.

  They are first securing our country. We came here as Members of the 
Senate because we want to protect America. We all say we want to 
protect America. Well, what more can we do to protect America than to 
make sure the borders of our country are, in fact, being secured? This 
legislation we now have in this Chamber will, in fact, secure our 
borders.
  Those of us who come here to the Senate also say we need to do 
something to enforce our laws. One of the values we have as the people 
of America is we say we are a nation of laws.
  What makes us different today than the circumstances we see happening 
in places such as Iraq, such as Lebanon, and other places? What makes 
us different here in the United States of America is we are a nation of 
laws. We enforce our laws. We pass laws here in the Senate, the House 
of Representatives, that are signed by the President, and then we have 
an executive branch that enforces the laws of America.
  Well, they haven't been enforced very well. In fact, I think in the 
last several years we have seen the lowest number of enforcement cases 
that have been taken against employers who have hired people who were 
not authorized to be in this country.
  What we have set up in this legislation is a program that will, in 
fact, make sure we are enforcing the laws of our Nation, and that that 
value of being a nation of laws is something we can celebrate.
  Certainly the legislation before us as well deals with the reality of 
the 12 million undocumented workers who are here. We deal with the 
other issues that are part of the economic challenges we face in 
America. The 12 million people who are here working with undocumented 
status are providing very valuable assistance to the American people.
  For every American who is watching the debate on immigration, they 
ought to ask themselves: Who is it that is cleaning your yard? Who are 
the landscapers of America today? Who is it that is working out in the 
meat-packing plants making sure you have the meat and produce that ends 
up on your table for your evening dinner? Who is it that is working 
out, in resort areas, making sure that not only your landscaping is 
being taken care of but the needs of your household are being taken 
care of? Who is out working in the homes of America making sure that 
the children of America are being taken care of? Who is it out there in 
America today making sure that the nurses' aides working in homes of 
Americans taking carry of our elderly are there?
  Many of them are the undocumented workers of America. Most of those 
people today live very much in the shadows of our society. They live in 
the shadows of our society. They often are subject to exploitation. 
Often when they come from whatever country, they are subject to the 
kind of exploitation that is very un-American. What we are trying to do 
is move our immigration system from a system that does not work, from a 
system that is a system of lawlessness, of broken borders, to a system 
that is a lawful and orderly program for immigration in our country.
  At the end of the day, my hope is as we debate the issues on 
amendments the rest of the week, that we in this Chamber, in this 
Senate, will move forward and we will say we are going to move with an 
immigration reform legislation that will address the issues of national 
security, that will address the economic security issues here in our 
country, that realize the human and moral issues that are very much at 
stake.
  Let me conclude, before I yield to my colleague from Arizona, by 
reminding people about the moral issues which are very much at the 
heart of this debate issue. Last year when we opened the debate on 
immigration reform in the Senate, Senator McCain, who has been an 
advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, talked about the number 
of people who had died in the desert in his State. He said at the time 
there had been 400 people who died in 2004. I believe 600 people died 
in 2006. He said: These are not just statistics; those are people who 
were found dead in the desert.
  If I remember correctly, he talked about a young mother who was found 
dead in the desert holding her child, who also died, in her arms.
  In my own church in the State of Colorado, our archbishop, Archbishop

[[Page S6990]]

Chaput, has often spoken out about the moral issues which are at stake 
with respect to the immigration debate. He wrote a column that was 
widely published in the Catholic Register last year which he titled 
``Dying to Live.'' What he meant to say in that title, what he said in 
his article, is that people who are coming here to live the American 
dream were actually dying in our deserts as they came here to live the 
American dream.
  It seems to me what we can do as a Senate, working with the House of 
Representatives, working with the President, is come up with a system 
of law and order that will give people an understanding of how our 
immigration system works, that will make sure our borders are secure, 
that will make sure we enforce our laws in the United States of 
America, and that will make sure we end the immorality that has been 
very much a part of our system of lawlessness and chaos we have made 
with immigration in our country.
  I hope my Democratic and Republican colleagues will help us move 
forward as we address amendments through the rest of the week and to 
produce legislation that we can move forward to the House of 
Representatives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Colorado. He 
has correctly pointed out that there are moral, humanitarian, judicial, 
and fairness dimensions to this debate. The stories of people dying in 
the desert are well known to Arizonans because we are coming into the 
hot time of year. That is when it begins to hit home that there are 
people who, because of desperation on their part, seek to cross the 
desert, which is difficult under the best of circumstances, and they 
are frequently ill-prepared. The coyotes take advantage of them. They 
take their money and send them on their way without adequately 
preparing them to cross. The stories are heartbreaking, and there is a 
great deal of other crime--sexual assaults and other kinds of crime--
that is perpetrated on people and has to stop. The best way to stop it 
is to get the border secure, find a legal way for people to come here, 
and help them to realize their dream.
  People say we are a nation of immigrants. We are also a nation of 
laws. One thing that distinguishes us from other countries is that we 
have respect for law. I always use the example of the intersection on 
the street. When you have a green light and you drive through, you 
don't think about it. You know that because other people respect the 
law, you can drive through the intersection without worrying that 
someone else is going to run the red light and hit you. It is very rare 
that happens. Because we understand and respect law in our society, 
when we see law that is not enforced, we begin to wonder whether we are 
a society of law, and some people decide it is OK for them to begin to 
break the law in little ways. It is corrosive, when you drive down the 
street you see people whom you presume to be illegal immigrants 
congregating around a hardware store, looking for work in the morning, 
or you hear stories about people being picked up.
  It is, frankly, hard to fool the American people. They know there are 
millions of illegal immigrants employed in the country today, and they 
don't like it. They don't like the fact that we can't control the 
border. It is corrosive to respect for the rule of law.
  They say: Gee, it is nice not to be able to pay your taxes. Maybe I 
would like not to pay my taxes, too.
  You don't want American citizens beginning to think the Government 
doesn't care about enforcing the law and that they should begin to 
disrespect and therefore not abide by the law. Yet that is exactly the 
kind of attitude that crops up when the Government is not careful about 
enforcing the law in a fair and just way.
  Unfortunately, we have a law today that is not easy to enforce. It 
requires employers' cooperation in ways that make it very difficult. 
One of the reasons we need to work our hardest to pass a new bill is so 
that we have a law that can be enforced. It will be up to us and to the 
administration, whatever administration is in power, to see to it that 
it is enforced, but at least it has to be something we can work with.
  When those who say: Let's just let the situation be by enforcing the 
laws today, that is the answer to the problem, my response is, the law 
today is very difficult to enforce and, as a result, we have to change 
it. That is one of the reasons for adopting a new law. Getting back to 
respect for the rule of law and recognizing the humanitarian aspects of 
this are two of the things that are not discussed enough.
  I appreciate the Senator from Colorado bringing them up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to respond to a couple of 
suggestions proffered before the Senate as it relates to those Senators 
who have amendments to offer to the comprehensive immigration reform 
legislation. I am compelled to do so because the way they are 
characterized ultimately demeans what should be a clear process of what 
is the greatest marketplace of ideas, the Senate.
  The first item that I have heard several times is the suggestion that 
certain amendments are killer amendments. When one of our colleagues, 
particularly those who were part of constructing the bargain, suggests 
that a certain amendment is a ``killer amendment,'' a killer amendment 
where the intention, the purpose, the main goal is to kill the 
legislation before us because they don't like it and they don't want to 
see it pass, maybe they are a part of the universe who believes we 
should just seek to deport everybody in the country, 12 million people, 
the greatest deportation in the history of mankind. Maybe it is those 
who believe we should spend $250 billion in order to accomplish that. 
But, regardless, there is a universe of individuals that clearly does 
not like this bill or the idea of comprehensive immigration reform, and 
they seek to have amendments that would in essence destroy the essence 
of the legislation.
  I am chagrined to hear my distinguished colleague from Arizona, in a 
listing of amendments, suggest that my amendments on family 
reunification are killer amendments. I didn't know that family 
reunification rose to the level of being a killer amendment because 
unlike some of our colleagues who last year opposed comprehensive 
immigration reform, I was here advocating for and casting votes 
for final passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Yet some 
who come to the floor now and suggest that certain amendments are 
killer amendments weren't there last year for comprehensive immigration 
reform. I do want to see comprehensive immigration reform. I worked for 
it last year and voted for last year's version. I spent countless hours 
in negotiation sessions this year to try to achieve a bill that I could 
support.

  It is still my fervent hope that we will pass a comprehensive bill, 
one that is tough but also smart; one that provides security at our 
borders north and south because it is amazing to me how in this entire 
debate we never hear about security at our northern border. Yet last 
year approximately 50,000 people came across the northern border. I 
guess we are not worried about those people. But we do focus a lot on 
the southern border. We forget that the millennium bomber came through 
the northern border. There must be something about that northern border 
that is OK. The southern border is a little bit of a problem. I don't 
know what it is, whether there are different people crossing those 
different types of borders, but they are still crossing in an 
undocumented fashion. So I am for security at the northern and southern 
borders.
  I am also one who understands, in terms of the comprehensive nature 
of this bill, the economic realities of our country; that it helps fuel 
our economy and drives it forward, and also to stop human trafficking, 
the use of people enslaved for certain purposes and exploitation. I 
want to know who is in America to pursue the American dream versus who 
is here to destroy it. That is real security.
  In the pursuit, I heard a lot about the rule of law. I am for the 
rule of law. But how does the rule of law get promoted when we say to a 
U.S. citizen who has applied for their family member waiting abroad, 
waiting their time, following the rules, obeying the rule of law, that, 
in fact, they have an inferior

[[Page S6991]]

right to someone who did not follow the rules, who did not obey the 
law, and who ultimately will receive a benefit superior to that U.S. 
citizen who is claiming their family member and waiting under the law 
and pursuing the law. I think it sends the wrong message about what the 
rule of law is all about.
  Our amendment very simply says a U.S. citizen claiming their family 
member waiting under the legal process, waiting abroad, that their 
right should not be snuffed out like that under this bill in May of 
2005, when those who have crossed the borders of our country through a 
process that is unchecked, undocumented, get a benefit January 2007. 
Break the law, you get a benefit January 2007; follow the law, the rule 
of law, obey it, your right is snuffed out in May of 2005. I think if 
we want to send a message about the rule of law, what we want to do is 
ensure that we put on an equal footing the right of a U.S. citizen 
claiming their family member, obeying the law, to give them the same 
opportunity as those who have not. That is what our amendment is all 
about. Killer amendment? Family reunification, rule of law, following 
the rules, a killer amendment?
  I have heard a lot about family values in my 15 years in the 
Congress. It is interesting. The voices of family values don't have the 
same values when it comes to this issue. Clearly, this vote will be a 
test of those who say they are for strengthening families, for bringing 
families together, for understanding the very essence of how strong 
families make for strong communities, of how we want to bring families 
together. Family reunification is at the core of the amendment I have 
offered before the Senate and that I believe we will be voting on 
tomorrow.
  I believe it is a false choice to suggest that this legislation 
cannot move forward and that, in fact, we will have a killer amendment 
simply because we want to give a universe of people who have obeyed the 
law, followed the rules, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, 
children of U.S. citizens, a chance over time to be able to come in. It 
seems to me that is a false choice.
  It is also a false choice, under the new point system that is being 
devised for future immigration, that this new point system, in which 
there is 100 points maximum score, well, yes, we need new workers who 
will be highly skilled. I believe we can reconcile that need. I am 
hoping that we will actually do a much better job of educating 
Americans who will be able to be the engineers, the scientists, the 
researchers, and developers; those in the new technologies who will 
fuel America's prosperity. But while we move toward making that a 
reality, sure I am for saying that, OK, we are going to subscribe a 
series of points toward those people who have the skills. But must it 
be largely at the exclusion of family reunification? Is there no 
significant value to the idea that when you have someone come that 
their family members are ultimately a significant part of the strength 
and vitality of the country, of the success of those individuals on 
behalf of the country?
  Servicemembers, who are not United States citizens or were not United 
States citizens, in different branches of the Armed Forces of the 
United States, who were worthy of wearing the uniform of the United 
States, worthy of fighting for the United States, worthy of being 
injured and shedding blood on behalf of the United States, but not 
worthy--not worthy--of being able to claim their family members? Is 
that what our values have come to?
  I believe under both our amendment that offers the opportunity for 
U.S. citizens to claim their family members and Senator Clinton's 
amendment, which I have cosponsored with her, to have U.S. permanent 
residents to be able to claim their family members, if you are worthy 
to fight, then you are worthy to claim your family members.
  It seems to me, isn't family worth 10 or 15 points in the 100-point 
system--and not with a barrier that says: Well, you get some points 
only if you reach a certain numeric number, and then the family is 
worth something. No. Families are worth something, it seems to me, from 
the very beginning, the very get-go.
  In the 100-point system, 10 or 15 points is not worth going toward 
family? I think it is. If you are worthy of serving, you are worthy of 
claiming your family members.
  Here is someone who served his country exceptionally well, I believe: 
Colin Powell. He served his country both as Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and as Secretary of State. Under this system we are 
debating in the Senate, his parents would not have made it to America 
and he would not have served the country as well as he did. We are 
talking about the future Colin Powells, as we debate this legislation 
today.
  GEN David Petraeus is right now leading our efforts in Iraq--a 
different challenge. Under this legislation, his parents would have 
likely not have made it to this country and his service would not have 
been realized. We are talking about the future General Petraeuses.
  Under this bill, the person who discovered the polio vaccine, Jonas 
Salk, and eradicated polio--his parents would not have made it to this 
country and we would not have been the beneficiaries of his genius. He 
would not qualify with that high-tech percentage and certainly would 
have gotten very little for family reunification as it is presently 
constructed. If he happened to be among those family members now being 
claimed by a U.S. citizen after May 1, 2005, he would be out of luck, 
his right to be here would have been gone, and we would have lost one 
of the great scientists of our time.
  Thomas Edison. His is the effort that in fact has made this Chamber 
light up, our homes light up, our businesses light up. I am 
particularly proud of Thomas Edison, of Menlo Park, New Jersey. Under 
this bill--if we do not change it by that which are being described as 
killer amendments--we would not have had a Thomas Edison because his 
parents would not have qualified under this bill.
  Bob Hope. He went across the globe making sure our service men and 
women--who were giving of their all--were entertained. He brought 
laughter to us. He brought laughter to them in some of the most 
difficult theaters in the world. Under this bill, it is likely we would 
not have had Bob Hope as a national treasure.
  So it seems to me when I listen to the suggestion that amendments on 
family reunification, particularly those upholding the right of a 
United States citizen today, who has filed for his family member--and 
where that right has been snuffed out, yet someone who crossed the 
border illegally and did not wait their turn, follow the rules, and 
obey the law has a better position--that is not about the rule of law.
  The second set of propositions I want to talk about--and I spent a 
lot of time with these Senators, and I appreciate enormously the work 
they did. I really do. I think there are many aspects of this bill that 
are very good. Certainly, the security aspect is out there, big time. 
There are a lot of elements of the security aspect of this bill.
  There are aspects that certainly recognize the economic future of our 
country. There is certainly finding a pathway to earned legalization--
and it is earned legalization. It is not amnesty. Amnesty is something 
for nothing. This is certainly not something for nothing. As a matter 
of fact, under this bill, if you happen to have a family of four in an 
undocumented status, by the time the process is finished, it costs you 
nearly $29,000, $30,000.
  I was looking at the Federal Criminal Code. You can commit crimes on 
narcotics trafficking, you can commit crimes on possession of weapons, 
you can commit a series of crimes that have, as a maximum fine, $5,000. 
This is a civil penalty, and yet we are going to have people doing some 
of the harder jobs in America and their families of four paying about 
$29,000. That is not amnesty.
  But even though I respect the incredible work of those 12 Senators 
who finally agreed to move forward with the bill we are debating today, 
12 is not 100. It is not even a majority. No one has a monopoly on how 
to best provide for comprehensive immigration reform. Proponents say 
this now: that family reunification amendments are killer amendments or 
that any set of amendments may be killer amendments. But at the end of 
the day, when it does not go to the heart of security, does not go to 
the heart of employment verification, does not go to the heart of 
Border Patrol, does not go to the heart of employment verification, 
does not

[[Page S6992]]

go to the heart of even a new system for determining who comes into the 
country under a new point system, does not go to the heart of violating 
the rule of law--but, in my mind, promotes the rule of law--I find it 
difficult that anyone can say those are killer amendments.
  They may suggest it now in this context, but I am sure there will be 
a future piece of legislation in which they will be arguing on the 
other side, saying that as well intentioned as 12 Senators may be, it 
is not, in fact, even a majority of the Senate; it certainly is not 
100.
  This is the Senate. It represents, collectively, 300 million 
Americans. That means all of us come together on behalf of the Nation's 
collective will, its collective purpose, and its collective common 
good.
  Now, in that respect, the bottom line is, when you have amendments 
that do not go to the heart of security, employment verification, 
Border Patrol, that do not go to the heart of the ability to follow the 
rule of law, that do not go to the heart of the very essence of worker 
protections, that do not go to the heart of employment verification, do 
not go to the heart of the undoing of the balance in the earned 
legalization system--my God, we are talking about people who are 
waiting under the law to come to the country in a legal process.

  So I have to take strong umbrage to the suggestion that there is 
somehow a monopoly on how to provide for comprehensive immigration 
reform, and particularly when amendments that are being offered by some 
of us on family reunification are suggested to be killer amendments.
  I want to see comprehensive immigration reform pass. A killer 
amendment is offered by someone who wants to see it not pass. I did not 
dedicate all this time and effort to try to change one of the Nation's 
critical challenges in a way that can be tough, can be strong, can be 
smart, can provide for our security, can fuel our economy, and, at the 
same time, end human trafficking, exploitation, and bring people out of 
the shadows into the light--to know who is here to pursue the American 
dream versus those who are here to destroy it--I did not spend all that 
time to try to kill legislation. I am seeking to improve it.
  I hope our colleagues, who travel across the country and talk about 
family values, are going to join us tomorrow on that amendment. This 
institution is the greatest marketplace of ideas. That is what the 
Senate is about. It is in the clash of ideas that we hopefully come 
together and provide some of the best possible solutions to some of our 
greatest challenges.
  I hope the amendments we are offering in that respect are not 
categorized as killer amendments but they are categorized as ideas 
within this marketplace to improve this legislation in a way we can all 
be proud of.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I commend my good friend, the Senator 
from New Jersey, Bob Menendez. Since he has been in the Senate, he has 
brought a passion and a voice of reason to so many issues. It is a 
delight to have his voice heard in the Senate.
  In every way, each of the 100 Members of this Senate brings our own 
personal history and our own personal perspectives to this debate on 
immigration. The Senator from New Jersey brings a tremendous sense of 
practical experience and personal knowledge, and a sense of how 
immigration has affected his family and his parents and his community 
in a way, perhaps, that is very unique in this Chamber. His 
contributions to the whole debate on immigration reform--not only here 
in the Senate this year but throughout his entire history in public 
service--are something we all very much appreciate. We hope to be able 
to work with him as we move forward and try to get to a final 
conclusion on this bill. His comments are comments which are not only 
eloquent, they are comments which are very much heartfelt by me and 
others in this Chamber.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, we continue to make significant progress 
as we move forward to getting to some final votes on this legislation.
  Last week, we disposed of 13 amendments. In comparison, last year, 
there were approximately 35 amendments throughout the entire debate on 
comprehensive immigration reform. So last week we accomplished 
disposing of 13 significant amendments to the immigration reform 
legislation before us.
  The unanimous consent request I will propound in a second will add an 
additional four amendments to this legislation.


        Amendments Nos. 1167; 1163; 1238; and 1166, As Modified

  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
to consider en bloc the following amendments, that they be considered 
and agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon 
the table en bloc: Cantwell amendment No. 1167; Alexander amendment No. 
1163; Cornyn amendment No. 1238; and Grassley amendment No. 1166, as 
modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1167

  (Purpose: To authorize the Attorney General to carry out a program, 
 known as the Northern Border Prosecution Initiative, to provide funds 
to northern border States to reimburse county and municipal governments 
 for costs associated with certain criminal activities, and for other 
                               purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NORTHERN BORDER PROSECUTION REIMBURSEMENT.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Northern Border Prosecution Initiative Reimbursement Act''.
       (b) Northern Border Prosecution Initiative.--
       (1) Initiative required.--From amounts made available to 
     carry out this section, the Attorney General, acting through 
     the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the 
     Office of Justice Programs, shall carry out a program, to be 
     known as the Northern Border Prosecution Initiative, to 
     provide funds to reimburse eligible northern border entities 
     for costs incurred by those entities for handling case 
     dispositions of criminal cases that are federally initiated 
     but federally declined-referred. This program shall be 
     modeled after the Southwestern Border Prosecution Initiative 
     and shall serve as a partner program to that initiative to 
     reimburse local jurisdictions for processing Federal cases.
       (2) Provision and allocation of funds.--Funds provided 
     under the program shall be provided in the form of direct 
     reimbursements and shall be allocated in a manner consistent 
     with the manner under which funds are allocated under the 
     Southwestern Border Prosecution Initiative.
       (3) Use of funds.--Funds provided to an eligible northern 
     border entity may be used by the entity for any lawful 
     purpose, including the following purposes:
       (A) Prosecution and related costs.
       (B) Court costs.
       (C) Costs of courtroom technology.
       (D) Costs of constructing holding spaces.
       (E) Costs of administrative staff.
       (F) Costs of defense counsel for indigent defendants.
       (G) Detention costs, including pre-trial and post-trial 
     detention.
       (4) Definitions.--In this section:
       (A) The term ``eligible northern border entity'' means--
       (i) any of the following States: Alaska, Idaho, Maine, 
     Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North 
     Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and 
     Wisconsin; or
       (ii) any unit of local government within a State referred 
     to in claluse (i).
       (B) The term ``federally initiated'' means, with respect to 
     a criminal case, that the case results from a criminal 
     investigation or an arrest involving Federal law enforcement 
     authorities for a potential violation of Federal criminal 
     law, including investigations resulting from multi-
     jurisdictional task forces.
       (C) The term ``federally declined-referred'' means, with 
     respect to a criminal case, that a decision has been made in 
     that case by a United States Attorney or a Federal law 
     enforcement agency during a Federal investigation to no 
     longer pursue Federal criminal charges against a defendant 
     and to refer the investigation to a State or local 
     jurisdiction for possible prosecution. The term includes a 
     decision made on an individualized case-by-case basis as well 
     as a decision made pursuant to a general policy or practice 
     or pursuant to prosecutorial discretion.
       (D) The term ``case disposition'', for purposes of the 
     Northern Border Prosecution

[[Page S6993]]

     Initiative, refers to the time between a suspect's arrest and 
     the resolution of the criminal charges through a county or 
     State judicial or prosecutorial process. Disposition does not 
     include incarceration time for sentenced offenders, or time 
     spent by prosecutors on judicial appeals.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $28,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     succeeding fiscal year.


                           amendment no. 1163

      (Purpose: To establish an award to recognize companies for 
         extraordinary efforts in English literacy and civics)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PRESIDENTIAL AWARD FOR BUSINESS LEADERSHIP IN 
                   PROMOTING AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Presidential 
     Award for Business Leadership in Promoting American 
     Citizenship, which shall be awarded to companies and other 
     organizations that make extraordinary efforts in assisting 
     their employees and members to learn English and increase 
     their understanding of American history and civics.
       (b) Selection and Presentation of Award.--
       (1) Selection.--The President, upon recommendations from 
     the Secretary, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of 
     Education, shall periodically award the Citizenship Education 
     Award to large and small companies and other organizations 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) Presentation.--The presentation of the award shall be 
     made by the President, or designee of the President, in 
     conjunction with an appropriate ceremony.


                           amendment no. 1238

  (Purpose: To increased the authorization of appropriations for the 
                      Border Relief Grant Program)

       On page 26, line 27, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.


                    amendment no. 1166, as modified

 (Purpose: To clarify that the revocation of an alien's visa or other 
            documentation is not subject to judicial review)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF VISA REVOCATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 221(i) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by striking 
     ``There shall be no means of judicial review'' and all that 
     follows and inserting the following: ``Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, including section 2241 of title 28, 
     United States Code, any other habeas corpus provision, and 
     sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, a revocation under this 
     subsection may not be reviewed by any court, and no court 
     shall have jurisdiction to hear any claim arising from, or 
     any challenge to, such a revocation, provided that the 
     revocation is executed by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) apply to all revocations made on or after such date.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I would note that with the adoption of 
those 4 amendments, when you add them to the 13 amendments that were 
added to this legislation last week, we have now acted on 17 amendments 
that have been proposed to the Senate. We have a number of other 
amendments that are pending, and we encourage our colleagues to come 
forward with other amendments they may also have. We are also ready to 
move forward to schedule votes on additional amendments beginning 
tomorrow morning.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 5, when 
the Senate resumes consideration of S. 1348, the immigration 
legislation, that the time until 11:50 a.m. be for debate with respect 
to the Allard amendment No. 1189 and the Durbin amendment No. 1231, 
with the time to run concurrently on both amendments and divided as 
follows: 10 minutes each, the majority and Republican managers or their 
designees and Senators Allard and Durbin; that no amendments be in 
order to either amendment prior to the vote; that the amendments be 
voted on in the order listed here; that upon disposition of the Durbin 
amendment, the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. in order to 
accommodate the respective party conference work periods; that there be 
2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the second vote and that 
the second vote be 10 minutes in duration, with no further intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me make a closing comment prior to 
adjourning the Senate for the day.
  We begin our work on immigration reform legislation in this time 
after the work period for Memorial Day. We have a lot of work ahead of 
us in this week ahead. It is my hope we will be able to work together 
to get to a position where we will have a final vote in the Senate this 
week on immigration reform legislation.
  We will hear, as this week continues, many personal stories about 
immigration, how the families of some Members of the Senate came into 
this country from different places. You will hear the stories which 
often tell us of immigration which has made us a rich country. I am 
sure we will hear the story of Senator Domenici and his parents and how 
his parents and his grandparents came to this country as immigrants--
illegally at one point--and became part of the American dream. You will 
hear lots of those dreams told here as we deal with the issue of 
immigration reform.
  For me, the issue of immigration is an important one for a lot of 
different reasons. Today, it is a very important issue for us because 
of the national security issues which are at stake. Unless we are able 
to fix our broken borders, I don't think any of us can say we are truly 
advancing the ball of national security for our country. The Presiding 
Officer knows well that as attorney general, the members of the law 
enforcement community hold ourselves up with pride to say we are 
different from other countries around the world because we honor the 
fact that we are a nation of laws and we uphold those laws in our 
country. That is integral to making this the great democracy we have in 
our country. So it is very important for us to move forward because we 
need to uphold those values which are so fundamental--the value of 
national security, the value of upholding a nation of laws. Those are 
fundamental values.
  For me, the issue of immigration reform also has some history in my 
whole family because my family did not immigrate to this country as is 
often thought about with respect to many of the immigrants we have here 
in the United States, families who came here in the last generation or 
the last 100 years. My family settled the city of Santa Fe, NM, in 
1598. That was some 409 years ago. It was a time when, for the next 250 
years following 1598, the part of the Southwest which is now northern 
New Mexico and southern Colorado was in the hands of the Spanish 
Government through 1821 and under the sovereignty of Mexico from 1821 
until 1848. So for 250 years, my family farmed and ranched on the banks 
of the Rio Grande River in northern New Mexico and the southern part of 
Colorado and were very much a fabric of that landscape of the 
Southwest, very much a fabric of those non-Native American settlers who 
came and who found the great American dream to be a true dream in the 
United States in later years.
  In 1848, the treaty between the United States and Mexico was signed 
and Mexico ceded the northern part of its territory to the United 
States of America. At that time, those generations who came before me 
and my family were given a choice--a choice to become American citizens 
under article 10 of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or, in the 
alternative, they could move some several hundred miles to the south to 
what had been a new border that had been created, now several hundred 
miles along the Rio Grande River, about 400 miles to the south of Santa 
Fe, NM, some 500 miles to the south of where our current ranch resides.
  At that time, my family, like many families of the day and in other 
generations as well, made the decision that they would stay. They would 
stay because they knew that this land was their land and those 
communities were their communities, that those landscapes were their 
landscapes and that they would make it their home.
  So for the generations in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico 
since 1848 until today, they continued to contribute greatly to the 
American dream in many different ways.
  In my own case, many members of my family have served in the U.S. 
military and have contributed greatly to the American dream. My own 
mother and father came here to Washington in the early years of World 
War II. My mother worked in the War Department

[[Page S6994]]

at the age of 19, coming from a village in northern New Mexico, and 
spending 5 years working in the War Department as part of that 
``greatest generation'' which gave back so much to America to give us 
the kind of greatness we have had for the last 60-plus years here in 
the United States. My father became a soldier in the Army. He retired 
as a staff sergeant after having served his time in the U.S. Army.
  There were other members of my family. My uncle Leandro, who is my 
mother's brother, 2 years older than my mother, gave his life in the 
soils of Europe defending this country's efforts in World War II as the 
United States of America saved this world from the hands of the Nazis 
and the hands of the fascists who would have turned civilization back 
to a place none of us ever wanted to go back to.

  So today, as we stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate debating 
what we should do with the immigration laws of this country, it is 
important to remember that this country has indeed come a long way, 
that we are, in fact, an America in progress, that the America in 
progress we have seen for centuries and for generations is one we must 
build upon. For us here in the Senate to simply accept what some would 
suggest--and that is that we do nothing with this issue of 
immigration--is, in my view, a dishonor to our country and to the 
responsibilities we have. It is an abdication of duty, for those of us 
who have taken the oath of office to uphold the laws of the United 
States and the Constitution of our country to make this country greater 
than it is today, for us to simply say that this issue of immigration 
is too tough for us to deal with and that all we ought to do is somehow 
ignore it or figure out ways of sidestepping it and go on to work on 
other issues.
  I so much admire Senator Harry Reid because he has said to the Nation 
that he would hold the feet of the Senate to the fire as we deal with 
the issue of immigration. It may not be a comfortable issue for most 
people to deal with. It is a contentious issue. The phone calls and e-
mails--and I am sure every Senator, both Democratic and Republican, has 
had their phones ringing off the hook for the last several weeks as we 
have dealt with this issue. Through the courage of Senator Reid, he has 
said we will move forward with this issue, and we are dealing with the 
issue. Through the courage of other Senators, both Democrats and 
Republicans, we have said this is an issue we can tackle. Yes, there 
are tough amendments, and we are working our way through those tough 
amendments, trying to make this immigration legislation which is on the 
floor better legislation, perhaps, than what was introduced here at the 
beginning of last week, and we are making progress.
  As I said, I think there are now 21 amendments which have been made 
to the legislation. There will be others we will make as the week goes 
on. But at the end of the day, America's greatness really depends upon 
chambers like this Chamber here, which holds the keys to the democracy 
of our country, and debating those issues which are difficult and 
getting us to a point of a conclusion to deal with these issues which 
are so fundamental to the 21st century of America. When we deal with 
this issue, what we will have done is we will have found solutions to 
the issue of a broken border that has been broken for a very long time. 
When we effectively deal with this issue, we will deal with the reality 
of the economic demands of the United States of America and how we 
treat people with the kind of humanity and morality we would expect of 
others.
  It is true that when one looks back at the immigration history of 
this country, there have been chapters in that immigration history 
which have been very difficult and very painful for those involved.
  From 1942 until 1964, there was a chapter in our immigration laws 
called the national Mexican immigration program, or the Bracero 
Program, in which people were brought into this country because there 
was a need for labor, and we had many of our men and women in uniform 
serving in faraway places, as those in my family were serving at that 
particular time, but because there was a need for labor in our 
factories and on our farms, people were brought to this country under a 
program. But it was a program that did not have worker protections, and 
the consequence of that program was that there were many people who 
suffered and who lived through a tremendous amount of pain because they 
did not have the protection of the laws of the United States of 
America.
  Today, in the legislation we have brought forward, we have included 
the worker protections that will ensure these people are protected. At 
the same time, the legislation we brought forward recognizes the 
importance of the American worker because even under the temporary 
guest worker program, which is a controversial issue being debated on 
this floor, what we have said in that part of the legislation is that a 
job has to be advertised first to the American worker and that if an 
American anywhere is willing and ready to take that job, it will not be 
available to somebody who would come in under the temporary guest 
worker program.
  So the economic issues, the national security issues, the human and 
moral issues which are at stake in this debate are some of the most 
important issues we face. I am hopeful that colleagues, working 
together in the Senate for the remainder of this week, will be able to 
come to a successful conclusion with respect to immigration reform 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________