[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7099-S7152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1348, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative 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.
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 United
States 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.
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 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.
DeMint amendment No. 1197 (to amendment No. 1150), to
require health care coverage for holders of Z nonimmigrant
visas.
Bingaman/Obama modified amendment No. 1267 (to amendment
No. 1150), to remove the requirement that Y-1 nonimmigrant
visa holders leave the United States before they are able to
renew their visa.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 2 hours of debate with respect to amendment No. 1184, as
modified, offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn; an amendment
offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, related to the
same subject, with time equally divided and controlled between Senator
Cornyn and Senator Kennedy.
Who yields time?
[[Page S7100]]
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am requesting just 30 seconds to make a
unanimous consent request.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that we call up three amendments, Nos. 1187,
1188, and 1201, and then we be returned back to the pending amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just for the benefit of the Members, we
have tried to establish a way of moving along today. We are going to
consider the Cornyn amendment, and then there is an amendment that I
will place at the desk. We will have a 2-hour time allocation equally
divided, though I am not sure we will take all the time, and then we
will have an opportunity to vote on that measure.
We are trying to set up a series of votes through the morning,
through the afternoon, and through the evening. What we are going to
try to do is to give Members as much time as possible on these items,
rotating back and forth through the course of the day, and we will work
with our colleagues to try to accommodate their schedules. We have a
rigorous program, and we will announce that.
We have talked with the floor managers, Senator Specter, Senator Kyl,
and others, on these measures, and we will proceed in that way. So
Members need to understand that we will have a busy and full day, and
we will start off with the amendment of the Senator from Texas, No.
1184, as I understand.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 1184
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes.
Mr. President, this amendment we will vote on this morning is an
important amendment. It was first filed 2 full weeks ago, and it has
taken this long to be able to get a vote on this amendment, for which I
am grateful, but I must say that, as the Republican leader indicated
this morning, the rate of progress with getting amendments debated and
voted on is not promising. And the fact that the majority leader has
now filed cloture, potentially cutting off the opportunity for full and
fair debate and an adequate number of votes on this bill, again, is not
encouraging at all.
I am one of those who would like to see a solution to this problem,
but I think it is important that we reflect on what kind of solution we
will accomplish if we are successful. To me, the goal is simply to
restore law and order to our immigration system. It is important to our
national security because we have to know who is coming into our
country and why people are here in a post-9/11 world. It is important
to public safety because we know the same broken borders that can allow
people who are economic migrants to come across can also allow common
criminals, drug traffickers, and even terrorists. And it is important
to our prosperity in this Nation that we reestablish our heritage as a
nation that believes in the rule of law. We simply cannot have people
choosing to obey some laws and disobeying others. That is not adherence
to the rule of law. That is picking and choosing, cherry-picking what
laws you find convenient and what laws you find inconvenient.
To my mind, and based upon my experience with my constituents across
the State of Texas last week, this is the cause for so much distrust of
the Federal Government when it comes to this issue. The basic objection
to this underlying bill is not that people don't believe there is a
serious problem, it is not that people are racist or anti-immigrant or
nativists or know-nothings or any of the other names that sometimes
people are called. It is that the American people believe we have been
here before.
In 1986, they gave their trust to the Federal Government to actually
fix this problem by granting a one-time amnesty and then providing for
an enforcement system that would actually be enforced against employers
who hire people who cannot legally work here. They were sold a bill of
goods. It didn't work. We got an amnesty, and we got no enforcement.
That is why people are so distrustful.
So if we are serious about restoring the rule of law, I believe the
first place to start would be by passing this amendment, amendment No.
1184, on the floor of the Senate.
What does this amendment do?
Well, first of all, this amendment would mandate that gang members
cannot obtain legal status. It is well documented that members of MS-13
and other gangs, ultra-violet gangs emanating from Central America,
have come across our broken borders and committed terrible crimes of
violence in the United States. In the underlying bill, the Secretary of
Homeland Security could actually grant a waiver that would allow a gang
member legal status.
That just cannot be. Congress should draw a line about whom we are
willing to allow in and whom we are not, and we shouldn't delegate this
to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security or the Attorney
General or anyone who might hold those positions in the future.
The next thing my amendment would do is it would address the
definition of ``good moral character.'' We would allow only people with
good moral character, as defined in the bill, to obtain legal status.
The underlying bill does not contain a prohibition on those who are
affiliated with terrorist organizations. My amendment makes the
commonsense change that would bar them. The amendment also requires
that those who apply for legalization under the bill must generally
show they have good moral character.
Third, my amendment makes the failure of sex offenders to register in
high-speed flight crimes grounds of ineligibility for Z visas.
Fourth, my amendment makes repeat DWIs, driving while intoxicated or
driving under the influence, an aggravated felony. It is a simple fact
of life that repeat DWI offenders are a substantial threat to a
community's safety.
They have a proven history of involvement in various serious
collisions that kill, maim, and otherwise seriously injure innocent
people.
When I was in Texas this last week, I met with representatives of
Mothers Against Drunk Driving and told them about the gaps in this
underlying bill and received the assurance, at least of that
representative, that this was an issue she cared passionately about. I
suggest all of us who care passionately about public safety and
decreasing the incidence of drunk driving and driving under the
influence, that are a threat to public safety, that those who care
about decreasing that threat should vote for this amendment.
Designating a third DUI offense as an aggravated felony recognizes the
acute danger that repeat DUI offenders present to the American people
and the strong need to remove from the United States those who
repeatedly commit DUI offenses.
The fifth category is the one on which I believe there is the biggest
disagreement. This has to do with so-called absconders and identity
thieves. This gets to the essence of this bill and whether we are
serious about restoring the rule of law to our immigration system and
whether we are going to send a message, loudly and clearly, that while
we might be willing to consider those who have entered our country
without a visa, who are by definition guilty of a misdemeanor, or those
who have come in legally and who have overstayed, who are guilty of a
status violation under our immigration laws--while we might be willing
to consider them for a path to legalization and citizenship under some
conditions, we should not allow a path to legalization and citizenship
for those who have openly defied our courts, the lawful orders of our
courts, and who have shown themselves as having no regard for the rule
of law.
What kind of citizens can we expect these individuals to be,
individuals who have been ordered deported, who have had their day in
court and who simply defied that court order by going on the lam and
melting into the American landscape, or those who have been ordered
deported and who have actually
[[Page S7101]]
been deported but then who have reentered the country? Both of those,
going on the lam after you have been ordered deported and reentering
after you have been actually deported, are felonies under section 243
of the Immigration and Naturalization Act--a felony.
If we are serious about restoring respect for the rule of law, then
we should, at the very least, prohibit felons and repeat offenders from
getting the Z visa or path to legal status, including the opportunity
to apply for legal permanent residency and citizenship. We should be
willing to draw a bright line there.
I have to say, with all due respect, if we do not adopt this
amendment, then we might as well retitle that section of this bill,
``No Felon Left Behind.'' It is clear, whether it is gang members,
terrorists, sex offenders or repeat drunk drivers, these people have
thumbed their noses at the law. While there is some common ground, and
I congratulate Senator Kennedy for moving our way on this issue, it
completely omits the category of felons who have shown no regard for
our laws and who have shown themselves unwilling to live in peace with
Americans in this country. We ought to draw a bright line there. My
amendment would do that.
Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senator is
recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. I know we have a number of colleagues who not only are
Members of the Senate but are also running for the highest office in
our land, running for the office of President of the United States. I
know there have been a number of debates on the Democratic side and
Republican side. I believe this amendment and the vote on this
amendment is a defining issue for those who seek the highest office in
the land, for them to demonstrate their respect for the rule of law and
to demonstrate their desire to return law and order to our immigration
system. A ``no'' vote on the Cornyn amendment will demonstrate that we
are not serious, that we do not believe the rule of law deserves
respect because, unfortunately, under the Kennedy amendment, the
alternative is literally a figleaf that has been offered to give people
the sense they voted for something so they will have an explanation,
even knowing they have not voted to exclude these felons. A failure to
vote yes on the Cornyn amendment will indicate we are not serious about
restoring the rule of law through our immigration system and will
indicate we are willing to allow felons and people who have no desire,
based on their experience, to comply with our laws and live in peace in
this country, to become part of America. I think we need to send a loud
and clear message as to where that line should be drawn.
I reserve the remainder of our time on this side and yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CORNYN. I will, Mr. President.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator about a hypothetical that
is not a hypothetical. It is a real case that has come through my
office in Chicago. I ask the Senator from Texas if he would consider
the facts in this case and tell me how his amendment would apply to the
case.
In a family in Chicago, the father is a citizen of the United States
and the four children that he and his wife have are all citizens of the
United States. The mother is undocumented. The mother came into the
United States illegally. She was married, raised a family--and her
grandmother died in Mexico. She went back over the border and, when she
tried to reenter the United States, produced identification that was
false. They caught her. They deported her back to Mexico, but she made
it back to the United States. She is now with her family in Chicago.
It is a case that has had a lot of publicity because she was deported
2 days before Mother's Day. She has been allowed to return to the
United States on a humanitarian waiver to be with her family.
I would like to ask the Senator from Texas, how would you treat her
under your amendment? What would her status be? Would she be
characterized as an aggravated felon? Could she, under any
circumstances, be given any opportunity to become legal under your
amendment?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will be glad to try to answer the
question. Similar to a lot of hypotheticals, it has a lot of twists and
turns. Let me give it a try.
Under this amendment, people who entered the country illegally and
who are guilty of illegal entry, or who come in legally and overstay,
would not be rendered ineligible, not under the Cornyn amendment. Those
who are repeat offenders--in other words, people who have entered
illegally, then exited the country and reentered; exited, reentered--
are guilty of a more serious offense because they are multiple
offenders.
I am not sure, under the hypothetical the Senator asked, whether this
individual would be barred. But people who are serial offenders and
violators of our immigration laws would be barred under this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. So if I might ask the Senator from Texas: The Senator
from Texas would suggest, then, that this mother of four citizens,
married to a citizen of the United States, who has lived here for more
than 10 years, should be deported?
Mr. CORNYN. What my amendment would do would not order her deported.
What it would do is say she is ineligible for a Z visa.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Texas--let's get down to the
reality of the situation. As far as this family is concerned, where the
mother has gone through the experience I described, you would say that
family has to either break up or leave?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I disagree with the characterization of
the Senator from Illinois. As this hypothetical individual is married
to a U.S. citizen, she could get a waiver on that ground because she is
married to a U.S. citizen. She would not, under existing law--she could
get a waiver and would not be deported necessarily.
Mr. DURBIN. If I might ask one last question, is that a provision in
your amendment? Or is that in the underlying bill?
Mr. CORNYN. In response to the question, that is a provision of
current law that my amendment does not touch.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for
raising that issue. I think our language makes it extremely clear. I
think there is a real question. We are looking through the language of
the Senator from Texas about whether that would necessarily define that
individual as an aggravated felon and therefore would deny the judge
the opportunity to make a humanitarian finding on it, but we can come
back to that.
Amendment No. 1333, as Modified
Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1333, as modified.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 1333, as modified, to amendment No. 1150.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 48, strike line 11 and all that follows through
page 51, line 37, and insert the following:
SEC. 204. INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF GANG MEMBERS.
(a) Definition of Criminal Gang.--Section 101(a) (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)) is amended by inserting after paragraph (51) the
following:
``(52)(A) The term `criminal gang' means an ongoing group,
club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons--
``(i) that has, as 1 of its primary purposes, the
commission of 1 or more of the criminal offenses described in
subparagraph (B); and
``(ii) the members of which engage, or have engaged within
the past 5 years, in a continuing series of offenses
described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Offenses described in this subparagraph, whether in
violation of Federal or State law or in violation of the law
of a foreign country, regardless of whether charged, and
regardless of whether the conduct occurred before, on, or
after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, are--
``(i) a felony drug offense (as defined in section 102 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
``(ii) a felony offense involving firearms or explosives,
including a violation of section
[[Page S7102]]
924(c), 924(h), or 931 of title 18 (relating to purchase,
ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons);
``(iii) an offense under section 274 (relating to bringing
in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to
aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United
States), or section 278 (relating to the importation of an
alien for immoral purpose);
``(iv) a felony crime of violence as defined in section 16
of title 18, United States Code, which is punishable by a
sentence of imprisonment of 5 years or more, including first
degree murder, arson, possession, brandishment, or discharge
of firearm in connection with crime of violence or drug
trafficking offense, use of a short-barreled or semi-
automatic weapons, use of a machine gun, murder of
individuals involved in aiding a Federal investigation,
kidnapping, bank robbery if death results or a hostage is
kidnapped, sexual exploitation and other abuse of children,
selling or buying of children, activities relating to
material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor,
activities relating to material constituting or containing
child pornography, or illegal transportation of a minor;
``(v) a crime involving obstruction of justice; tampering
with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant;
or burglary;
``(vi) any conduct punishable under sections 1028 and 1029
of title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and
related activity in connection with identification documents
or access devices), sections 1581 through 1594 of such title
(relating to peonage, slavery and trafficking in persons),
section 1952 of such title (relating to interstate and
foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering
enterprises), section 1956 of such title (relating to the
laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 of such
title (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in
property derived from specified unlawful activity), or
sections 2312 through 2315 of such title (relating to
interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles or stolen
property); and
``(vii) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in
clause (i) through (vi).''.
(b) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (L);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) Aliens associated with criminal gangs.--Unless the
Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General waives
the application of this subparagraph, any alien who a
consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of
Homeland Security knows or has reason to believe participated
in a criminal gang, knowing or having reason to know that
such participation promoted, furthered, aided, or supported
the illegal activity of the gang, is inadmissible.''.
(c) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Aliens associated with criminal gangs.--Any alien, in
or admitted to the United States, who at any time has
participated in a criminal gang, knowing or having reason to
know that such participation promoted, furthered, aided, or
supported the illegal activity of the gang is deportable. The
Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may
waive the application of this subparagraph.''.
(d) Temporary Protected Status.--Section 244 (8 U.S.C.
1254a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
(2) in subparagraph (c)(2)(B)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``, or'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) the alien participates in, or at any time after
admission has participated in, knowing or having reason to
know that such participation promoted, furthered, aided, or
supported the illegal activity of the gang the activities of
a criminal gang.''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``Subject to paragraph (3), such'' and
inserting ``Such''; and
(ii) by striking ``(under paragraph (3))'';
(B) by striking paragraph (3); and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
(D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated, by adding at the end
the following: ``The Secretary of Homeland Security may
detain an alien provided temporary protected status under
this section whenever appropriate under any other
provision.''.
(e) Increased Penalties Barring the Admission of Convicted
Sex Offenders Failing to Register and Requiring Deportation
of Sex Offenders Failing to Register.--
(1) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(2)(A)(i)), as amended by section 209(a)(3), is
further amended--
(A) in subclause (II), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subclause (III), by striking the comma at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by inserting after subclause (III) the following:
``(IV) a violation of section 2250 of title 18, United
States Code (relating to failure to register as a sex
offender); or''.
(2) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) (8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(2)(A)(i)) is amended--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``, and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) in subclause (II), by striking the comma at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) a violation of section 2250 of title 18, United
States Code (relating to failure to register as a sex
offender).''.
(f) Precluding Admissibility of Aliens Convicted of Serious
Criminal Offenses and Domestic Violence, Stalking, Child
Abuse and Violation of Protection Orders.--
(1) Inadmissibility on criminal and related grounds;
waivers.--Section 212 (8 U.S.C. 1182) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2), by adding at the end the
following:
``(J) Crimes of domestic violence, stalking, or violation
of protective orders; crimes against children.--
``(i) Domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse.--Any
alien who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence,
a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child
neglect, or child abandonment, provided the alien served at
least 1 year's imprisonment for the crime or provided the
alien was convicted of or admitted to acts constituting more
than 1 such crime, not arising out of a single scheme of
criminal misconduct, is inadmissible. In this clause, the
term `crime of domestic violence' means any crime of violence
(as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code)
against a person committed by a current or former spouse of
the person, by an individual with whom the person shares a
child in common, by an individual who is cohabiting with or
has cohabited with the person as a spouse, by an individual
similarly situated to a spouse of the person under the
domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction where
the offense occurs, or by any other individual against a
person who is protected from that individual's acts under the
domestic or family violence laws of the United States or any
State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local or foreign
government.
``(ii) Violators of protection orders.--Any alien who at
any time is enjoined under a protection order issued by a
court and whom the court determines has engaged in conduct
that constitutes criminal contempt of the portion of a
protection order that involves protection against credible
threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to
the person or persons for whom the protection order was
issued, is inadmissible. In this clause, the term `protection
order' means any injunction issued for the purpose of
preventing violent or threatening acts of domestic violence,
including temporary or final orders issued by civil or
criminal courts (other than support or child custody orders
or provisions) whether obtained by filing an independent
action or as an independent order in another proceeding.
``(iii) Applicability.--This subparagraph shall not apply
to an alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme
cruelty and who is not and was not the primary perpetrator of
violence in the relationship, upon a determination by the
Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security that--
``(I) the alien was acting in self-defense;
``(II) the alien was found to have violated a protection
order intended to protect the alien; or
``(III) the alien committed, was arrested for, was
convicted of, or pled guilty to committing a crime that did
not result in serious bodily injury.''; and
(B) in subsection (h)--
(i) by striking ``The Attorney General may, in his
discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I),
(B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2)'' and inserting ``The
Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security may
waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), (B), (D),
(E), (F), (J), and (K) of subsection (a)(2)''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or Secretary of Homeland Security''
after ``the Attorney General'' each place it appears.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to any acts that occurred on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 205. INCREASED CRIMINAL PENALTIES RELATED TO DRUNK
DRIVING, ILLEGAL ENTRY, PERJURY, AND FIREARMS
OFFENSES.
(a) Drunk Driving.--
(1) Inadmissibility.--Section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(2)) is amended by inserting after subparagraph (J),
as added by section 204(f) the following:
``(K) Drunk drivers.--Any alien who has been convicted of 1
felony for driving under the influence under Federal or State
law, for which the alien was sentenced to more than 1 year
imprisonment, is inadmissible.''.
(2) Deportability.--Section 237(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(F) Drunk drivers.--Unless the Secretary of Homeland
Security or the Attorney General waives the application of
this subparagraph, any alien who has been convicted of 1
felony for driving under the influence under Federal or State
law, for which the alien was sentenced to more than 1 year
imprisonment, is deportable.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 212(h) (8 U.S.C.
1182(h)) is amended--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Subsection
(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (II), (B), (D), and (E)'' and inserting
``Certain Provisions in Subsection (a)(2)''; and
[[Page S7103]]
(B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``and (E)'' and inserting ``(E), and (F)''.
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply to convictions entered on or after such date.
(b) Illegal Entry.--
(1) In general.--Section 275 (8 U.S.C. 1325) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 275. ILLEGAL ENTRY.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Criminal offenses.--An alien shall be subject to the
penalties set forth in paragraph (2) if the alien--
``(A) knowingly enters or crosses the border into the
United States at any time or place other than as designated
by the Secretary of Homeland Security;
``(B) knowingly eludes examination or inspection by an
immigration officer (including failing to stop at the command
of such officer), or a customs or agriculture inspection at a
port of entry; or
``(C) knowingly enters or crosses the border to the United
States by means of a knowingly false or misleading
representation or the knowing concealment of a material fact
(including such representation or concealment in the context
of arrival, reporting, entry, or clearance requirements of
the customs laws, immigration laws, agriculture laws, or
shipping laws).
``(2) Criminal penalties.--Any alien who violates any
provision under paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall, for the first violation, be fined under title
18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or
both;
``(B) shall, for a second or subsequent violation, or
following an order of voluntary departure, be fined under
such title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both;
``(C) if the violation occurred after the alien had been
convicted of 3 or more misdemeanors or for a felony, shall be
fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or
both;
``(D) if the violation occurred after the alien had been
convicted of a felony for which the alien received a term of
imprisonment of not less than 30 months, shall be fined under
such title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both; and
``(E) if the violation occurred after the alien had been
convicted of a felony for which the alien received a term of
imprisonment of not less than 60 months, such alien shall be
fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or
both.
``(3) Prior convictions.--The prior convictions described
in subparagraphs (C) through (E) of paragraph (2) are
elements of the offenses described in that paragraph and the
penalties in such subparagraphs shall apply only in cases in
which the conviction or convictions that form the basis for
the additional penalty are--
``(A) alleged in the indictment or information; and
``(B) proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial or admitted
by the defendant.
``(4) Duration of offense.--An offense under this
subsection continues until the alien is discovered within the
United States by an immigration officer.
``(5) Attempt.--Whoever attempts to commit any offense
under this section shall be punished in the same manner as
for a completion of such offense.
``(b) Improper Time or Place; Civil Penalties.--Any alien
who is apprehended while entering, attempting to enter, or
knowingly crossing or attempting to cross, the border to the
United States at a time or place other than as designated by
immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty, in
addition to any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed under any other provision of law, in an amount equal
to--
``(1) not less than $50 and not more than $250 for each
such entry, crossing, attempted entry, or attempted crossing;
or
``(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) if the
alien had previously been subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents is amended
by striking the item relating to section 275 and inserting
the following:
``Sec. 275. Illegal entry.''.
(3) Effective date.--Section 275(a)(4) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as added by this Act, shall apply only
to violations of section 275(a)(1) committed on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Perjury and False Statements.--Any person who willfully
submits any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation (including any document,
attestation, or sworn affidavit for that person or any
person) relating to an application for any benefit under the
immigration laws (including for Z non-immigrant status) will
be subject to prosecution for perjury under section 1621 of
title 18, United States Code, or for making such a statement
or representation under section 1001 of that title.
(d) Increased Penalties Relating to Firearms Offenses.--
(1) Penalties related to removal.--Section 243 (8 U.S.C.
1253) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``212(a)'' or after ``section''; and
(ii) in the matter following subparagraph (D)--
(I) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than four years''
and inserting ``and imprisoned for not more than 5 years'';
and
(II) by striking ``, or both'';
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``not more than $1000 or
imprisoned for not more than one year, or both'' and
inserting ``under title 18, United States Code, and
imprisoned for not more than 5 years (or for not more than 10
years if the alien is a member of any of the classes
described in paragraphs (1)(E), (2), (3), and (4) of section
237(a)).''; and
(2) Prohibiting carrying or using a firearm during and in
relation to an alien smuggling crime.--Section 924(c) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, alien smuggling
crime,'' after ``any crime of violence'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, alien smuggling
crime,'' after ``such crime of violence''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by inserting ``, alien
smuggling crime,'' after ``crime of violence''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `alien
smuggling crime' means any felony punishable under section
274(a), 277, or 278 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1324(a), 1327, and 1328).''.
(3) Inadmissibility for firearms offenses.--Section
212(a)(2)(A) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)), as amended by sections
204(e) and 209(a)(3), is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by inserting after subclause (IV) the
following:
``(V) a crime involving the purchasing, selling, offering
for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying,
or of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for
sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon,
part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device
(as defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United States
Code), provided the alien was sentenced to at least 1 year
for the offense,''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``Clause (i)(I)'' and
inserting ``Subclauses (I), (IV), and (V) of clause (i)''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will make a comment. I see my friend
from Rhode Island. I would like to make a brief comment on the
amendment of Senator Cornyn and a brief comment on our amendment. Then
I hope the Senator from Rhode Island will speak to it.
It is always interesting to listen, when we are talking about the
immigration bill, to those who go back to the 1986 bill. I remember it
very clearly. I voted against it. That was an amnesty. That was a real
amnesty. We hear a great deal in the public about what is amnesty, what
is not amnesty. That was amnesty. This legislation is not amnesty. That
effectively said those people who were undocumented, who came here,
were forgiven. They followed the basic recommendations of a report by
the distinguished president of Notre Dame, the Hessberg Report. I
remember it clearly.
There were enforcement provisions in there. They were completely
inadequate. I might remind my friend from Texas, from 1986 to 1992, we
had a Republican administration, a Republican President, and they
didn't enforce it, as they have not enforced the recent legislation.
They have had three investigations in terms of investigating
undocumented aliens--three. They are the great defenders of the
American border? Great defenders about immigration reform?
Please.
We always have to go through the little dance about the 1986 bill and
the enforcement. I wish, during that period of time--1986, 1987, 1988,
1989--I wish all during those years we had the enforcement. But we did
not. So we are where we are today. The real question is, is this
legislation that we have now the downpayment on national security, on
security internally? Does it provide the opportunity for those who are
here to pay the fine, go to the back of the line, demonstrate a good
working relationship and be able to emerge out of the shadows--the
AgJOBS bill, the DREAM Act, and other provisions of the temporary
worker program?
With regards to the Cornyn amendment, we have an immigration program
in this legislation that is strong, practical, and fair. One of the
essential elements is to bring the 12 million men, women, and
children--hard-working families--out of the shadows into the sunlight
of America. We know we are not going to conduct massive roundups and
deport 12 million people. We don't have the means to do it. It would
disrupt our economy, inflict untold hardships on millions of hard-
working people. It is estimated it would cost more than $250 billion.
We would have buses all the way from Los Angeles to New York and back
to trying to do this, if it were even possible.
[[Page S7104]]
But the Cornyn amendment would make vast numbers of these families
ineligible for our program. We are trying to deal with a key element of
the program and that deals with the families who are here. It would
keep them in the shadows, where employers abuse and underpay them. That
hurts the immigrants, but it hurts American workers, too, by depressing
wages.
That is what we see that is out there now, with undocumented--the 12
million with a work record which is even better, in terms of
percentages, than native born Americans, people who are willing to work
and want to work hard. But there is exploitation of those individuals
because every one of them knows all the boss has to do is go down and
call the immigration service.
Work 80 hours a week.
Well, I don't want to.
Well, I'm going to call the immigration service and you're deported.
They do that. That individuals are exploited in this country is well
understood. We are trying to free ourselves from that kind of a
condition. But the Cornyn amendment would still make vast numbers of
these families ineligible for our programs, keep them in the shadows
where employers abuse and underpay them, which hurts the immigrants but
it hurts American workers, too, by depressing their wages.
The Cornyn amendment does this by classifying an array of common
garden variety immigration offenses as crimes that would make them
ineligible for the program. For example, the Cornyn amendment says that
if you come here, have been ordered out of the country by immigration
authorities, but if you fail to leave or you come back, you are
ineligible. That is exactly what has been going on with our broken
immigration system; people have come to work, employers want them to
come, and they have benefitted our economy.
Immigration officers may find them and order them home, but our
employers beg them to come back. Our broken borders make that possible.
Cornyn says: If you have used false identification, you may be found
inadmissible and may be deported. But in our broken system, the people
who have wanted to work have been forced to use the false
identification. That is the reality of where we are today. Cornyn says
he wants to be tough on gang members, sex offenders, individuals
convicted of domestic violence. So do we. We have addressed any
provisions not covered by the current law. Our amendment goes even
further than the bipartisan compromise bill.
He wants to exclude gang members. Our amendment does that too. Nobody
who has engaged in illegal activity as part of a criminal gang will be
allowed to enter or stay in this country. He says we should bar sex
offenders from coming here. Our amendment does that. Any convicted sex
offender who fails to register will not be allowed back in the country;
if already here, then those offenders will face deportation.
Cornyn says immigrants who commit acts of domestic violence or
endanger their families should be punished. Our amendment does that. He
says drunk drivers should be deported. Our amendment does that. Any
immigrant with one felony conviction for drunk driving will not be
allowed to enter this country. If convicted here, then the drunk driver
will be deported.
He says there should be consequences for individuals engaging in
fraud. Our amendment does that. Our amendment punishes anyone who
commits perjury or makes false statements when seeking immigration
benefits. If any person lies on their application, then this individual
will be prosecuted and subject to criminal penalties.
He says we should go after immigrants convicted of firearms offenses.
Our amendment does that, too. Who are the people we want to apply under
our program? Who are the people the Cornyn amendment would condemn to
the shadows of abuse? We know that the vast majority of the families
who have come over here are hard-working people who care for their
children, go to church, and contribute to their communities.
In America, we respect hard work. Hard work built America. So our
program says: If your only offense is that you came here to work, you
came here to provide for your family, we will proceed in a way that you
can atone for that offense and earn the right to stay and work legally.
If you are a criminal, then we will arrest you. If you are a threat to
our national security, a terrorist, then we will lock you up. If you
try to cheat your way into the program through fraud, we will deport
you. But if you came here to work and build a life, then you can stay.
But first you have to meet the tough requirements: You have to pay the
$5,000 fine, show a steady work history, learn English, get to the back
of the line to get your green card, behind all those who have been
waiting legally to get theirs.
The Cornyn amendment creates harmful barriers for refugees fleeing
persecution. In America, we have had a long and proud tradition of
providing refuge to people who have faced persecution and oppression in
their lands, whose lives are at risk because they stood up for their
beliefs.
We took in refugees from Cuba and from Vietnam as they fled
communism. We have helped people from Somalia and Bosnia and other
areas of conflict and oppression. Now we are beginning to help people
whose lives are at risk because they helped our troops in Iraq.
But often these persecuted refugees have no choice but to cooperate
with their oppressors in order to save their families' lives and enable
their escape. The Cornyn amendment says: If you do that, if you provide
what is called material support to these oppressors and terrorist
groups, then we are not going to rescue you from the hands of your
oppressors. You have to take your chances and hope your oppressors do
not persecute you or even kill you or your family.
Consider the case of Helene from Sierra Leone, Revolutionary United
Front rebels attacked her home, hacked one of her family members to
death with a machete; they set her son on fire, leaving him near dead
with severe burns. They held her family captive, raping her and her
daughter and forcing them to cook, forcing her to cook and wash their
clothes.
The Cornyn amendment would bar legitimate refugees who were forced to
assist their oppressors under duress. Under the Cornyn amendment,
Helene would be ineligible to come to America as a refugee because she
cooked for the rebels and washed their clothes. Under the Cornyn
amendment, she and her family are ineligible because they provided
material support for a terrorist group.
If that is not bad enough, the Cornyn amendment says she can be
excluded based on secret evidence, evidence that neither she nor anyone
else outside the Government can see. She may never know why she was
excluded. The Cornyn amendment even bars her from going to court to
explain her situation and appeal the denial of her case. The decision
of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General is final.
Helene would never get her day in court to explain the tragic
circumstances of her case. The door to freedom in America would be
closed shut, end of the discussion, you go back into the hands of your
persecutors.
Madam President, surely by now, we have learned that closed
proceedings conducted by executive branch officials based on secret
evidence without any possibility of court review are inconsistent with
American traditions and inconsistent with the search for justice; let's
not go down that road again.
The amendment makes all of its changes retroactive. They apply to the
past and future conduct. The Cornyn amendment would change the rules in
midstream. That is frowned on in American jurisprudence; it is
unconstitutional in criminal law and disfavored elsewhere. People whose
conduct would not have affected their immigration status at a time it
was committed, will suddenly suffer severe consequence. The
retroactivity provisions simply bring home the punitive nature of this
amendment. It is not designed to contribute to creation of a tough but
fair and practical system of immigration, it is designed to be harshly
punitive.
This amendment would exclude hundreds of thousands from benefits of
this bill and undermine the bipartisan compromise that members of this
body worked so long and so hard to produce. We will have an opportunity
to vote for an alternative, the amendment I have offered. The amendment
expands the
[[Page S7105]]
already tough criminal gang provisions contained in the bill.
If you are associated with a gang, and that gang is known to be
engaged in violent crimes, drug crimes, crimes involving firearms or
explosives, alien smuggling or trafficking, you are not going to
qualify for benefits. If you are associated with a gang and the gang
has been engaged in crimes of violence, including murder, arson,
possession, kidnapping, bank robbery, sexual exploitation, abuse of
children, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, burglary,
racketeering, among other crimes, you are not going to be entitled to
receive lawful status in this country, and you are not going to qualify
for benefits.
This amendment expands the already tough grounds of inadmissibility
and the criminal penalties in the current immigration law. We target
essentially the same provisions as Senator Cornyn but in many instances
go further. This amendment bars the admission of sex offenders who
don't register as required and makes them subject to deportation as
well.
It ensures that wife beaters, child abusers, stalkers, and others who
prey on the vulnerable are inadmissible to the United States. It
ensures that a drunk driver who is sentenced to 1 year of prison cannot
be admitted to the United States and can be removed as well. Our drunk
driving provisions, which require only one felony conviction, are even
more restrictive than Senator Cornyn's, which requires three
convictions before a drunk driver becomes inadmissible. We increase the
penalties for illegal entry. We ensure that immigration fraud is
subject to perjury charges. We toughen the penalties for firearm
offenses. We are tough, but we are practical too. That is where this
side by side differs from Senator Cornyn. His provisions are bright-
line rules. He turns many of these criminal offenses into aggravated
felonies. That is ``immigration speak'' for: You will never, ever be
forgiven.
For many offenses, such as murder, that is more than a reasonable
consequence. Murderers should not become U.S. citizens. Under the
current law, they can never become a citizen. But most immigrants are
not murderers, they are people who have entered the United States
illegally. Under the Cornyn amendment, they could be aggravated felons
too.
As a practical matter, Senator Cornyn does not want us to distinguish
between murder and illegal entry; but that is not practical, nor does
it reflect our criminal justice system. So it is true that we build in
some small but important waivers that in extraordinary circumstances
would give someone a second chance, not murderers but someone who had
long ago made a mistake.
This week, I received a letter about a young man named Adrian, a
former gang member in Massachusetts who has turned his life around.
Adrian went from a life of juvenile delinquency to that of a dedicated
student; one who works full time now in hopes of going to college.
Adrian's principal and his teachers praise him for his hard work, his
commitment to family, his newfound motivation to go to college. They
want him to have a chance to stay in this country.
The author of the letter then says: ``It is a very, very hard thing
to leave the gang life behind. There are other Adrians out there as
well who have made the same decision regardless of difficulty. Is the
message this country wants to send them, that what they have done is
unforgivable regardless of whatever changes they may have courageously
made? Wouldn't the country gain by having an incentive in law that
might attract young people to leave gang life and move their lives
forward a very different way? Wouldn't it be helpful to the country to
have a waiver that a person could apply for if they can prove they have
left a gang and provided evidence on how they have moved on?''
Every change in our immigration law represents a statement about whom
we are as a country. Are we a country that takes individual
circumstances into account or are we a country that punishes with no
regard for individual circumstances? We can be tough on crime and yet
retain a level of discretion in our immigration laws? This is the crux
of the difference between what I am suggesting to the Senate and what
Senator Cornyn has proposed.
That a measure of discretion is every bit as much a tool of law
enforcement as the strictest ban. I see my friend who has been waiting
here. I yield time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would ask the distinguished Senator
from Massachusetts if we may go back and forth across the aisle. I have
a speaker on our side as well who would like to be recognized for 10
minutes. Is that acceptable?
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I would like to follow that. The good Senator was
here even before I was this morning. Is that agreeable?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I would yield to the request of the
Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. I thank all my colleagues for their courtesies.
Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Cornyn amendment and
in opposition to the much weaker, watered-down Democratic alternative.
This amendment illustrates a lot about this debate. The Cornyn
amendment is clear. It is necessary. It is common sense. It is
absolutely necessary we pass amendments such as this and have the
ability to debate and vote on amendments such as this in the important
immigration debate.
This amendment is very straightforward. It prevents terrorists, gang
members, sex offenders, and other folks who have broken the law in
significant ways, committed significant felonies, from receiving
immigration benefits and citizenship in the future. How can any of us
in the Senate oppose a straightforward and necessary commonsense
amendment? How can any of us be comfortable with an underlying bill
which has these gaping loopholes? We must address these gaping
loopholes. How can we tell families across America that we are going to
allow sex offenders and gang members to become legal residents,
possibly citizens? The Cornyn amendment would prevent this. It would
address all of these significant loopholes.
Again, terrorists, gang members, violent gang members, those who have
committed other significant felonies, those who have been detained for
coming into the country illegally and have absconded, those who have
been deported from the country for coming into the country illegally
and have reentered illegally--all of those categories of illegals
should be prevented from gaining the benefits of this bill. The Cornyn
amendment clearly does that.
The Democratic alternative clearly does not. It has significant
omissions from the Cornyn amendment. It allows absconders, those who
have been detained and have gone underground, to receive the benefits
of the bill. It allows those who have been deported from the country
and who came back in illegally to get the benefits of this bill. It
allows others who fall into the category of gang members and those who
committed serious felonies to gain the benefits of this legislation.
That is simply wrong. We must support the commonsense, straightforward
Cornyn amendment.
I also want to spend a portion of my time urging my colleagues to not
vote for cloture on this bill as it presently rests before us, because
we have many important amendments to consider. Two of those are the
amendments I will humbly offer to the Senate. They are important
issues; they are important amendments. I urge us to pay careful
consideration to them and to have an opportunity for debate and vote.
In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending
amendment and to call up my amendment No. 1338.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. I am sorry to hear that. Let me try my second amendment
which is also at the desk. It concerns a significant provision in the
bill which we need the opportunity to debate and vote on. That is
Vitter amendment No. 1339.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
[[Page S7106]]
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, unfortunately, this illustrates the
point about the inappropriateness of cloture. These are two significant
amendments which go to important provisions of the bill. All of us--and
more importantly, the American people--deserve to have these matters
debated and voted on. Let me explain what these amendments are about.
Everybody--certainly the majority side--has been given the amendments.
My first amendment only requires what Congress originally mandated
back in 1986; that is, the entry/exit system known today as US-VISIT.
We must have that fully operational before all aspects of this bill are
allowed to go into effect. It was authorized 10 years ago, but it is
not near to fully operational now. We must make sure that it is a part
of this bill's enforcement trigger.
Without the US-VISIT system's completion, we can't be sure that we
know what individuals are in the country. In fact, we can be sure we
will not know because how can we possibly have a grasp of who is in the
country and who is not in the country without this system which tracks
people as they exit? There are a lot of folks on visas here for a
limited period of time. Under that visa, they, of course, need to exit
the country before their visa is up. The US-VISIT system allows us to
know if they are doing that. How can we possibly be ready for the full
implementation of this legislation, how can we possibly say we have the
enforcement system we need in place without the US-VISIT system,
without knowing who exits the country and when, without knowing whether
they have overstayed their visa?
As of 2006, the illegal population included 4 to 5.5 million
overstays, people here illegally because they are overstaying the time
limits of their visa. The US-VISIT system is absolutely necessary to
get to the heart of the problem and to enforce against overstays. How
can we say we have adequate enforcement, how can we trigger the other
provisions of this bill without making sure we have that in place,
functioning, fully operational?
The US-VISIT system is not any part of the triggers now in the bill.
It must be. That is what my amendment 1339 goes to.
As I mentioned, I have another amendment, No. 1338, that would
correct a provision in the bill which doesn't allow for a catch-and-
release program anymore but simply changes that to a catch, pay, and
release program. In this legislation, those in this country illegally
who are caught and who are not from Mexico don't have to be kept in
custody. They can be released on a $5,000 bond. For months, and indeed
years, we on the Senate floor and those around the country have decried
the catch-and-release program, a program that has been in place where
illegals are caught but are released into our country and simply given
a piece of paper that says: Show up to court on such-and-such a date.
Guess what. They never do. This bill merely changes that to a catch,
pay, and release program. It allows catch and release to continue, only
with a $5,000 bond.
Why is that a problem? Because many of the folks we are talking
about, particularly those who are among the most dangerous, those
involved in illegal drug activity, those in other organized crime, can
get the $5,000 bond. If they are already paying human smugglers to get
them across the border, in many cases thousands and thousands of
dollars, one has to assume they can get the resources to pay this bond.
Changing catch and release to catch, pay, and release is completely
inadequate. Yet that is what the underlying legislation does.
Amendment No. 1338 would close that loophole, would say: No, we are
going to end catch and release forever, and we are not going to allow
cash, pay, and release. When we catch these folks coming into the
country illegally who are not from Mexico, so we can't simply send them
back to Mexico at the southern border, we are going to detain them. We
are not going to let them into the country on a bond or anything else.
We are going to detain them until they are deported, and we are going
to work very hard to deport them as quickly as possible.
Again, I believe my two amendments, which have not been allowed to be
offered, clearly illustrate why we are not ready for cloture on this
bill. This is a significant debate on a massive, 800-page bill. This
bill, if enacted, will affect our country in major and significant ways
for decades to come. Everybody admits that, no matter what side of the
debate they may be on. Yet we have only been allowed to have a modest
number of votes on the bill, something on the order of 12. That is
ridiculous. We need these sorts of amendments considered and voted on,
and we must oppose cloture until that happens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have tried to work out an orderly
process as we have proceeded. We are going to have plenty of time to
deal with a range of different amendments, as we did with the Vitter
amendment previously.
I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 39\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the Senator from Rhode Island 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
remembering senator craig thomas
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, this is my first time speaking on
the floor since the passing of our colleague, Senator Thomas. I know we
are all very conscious of the desk draped in black across the way, next
to Senator Cornyn. I extend my condolences to his many friends, my many
esteemed colleagues who knew and admired Senator Thomas and mourn his
loss and know he will be sorely missed by his friends in the Senate and
his friends and family in his native State of Wyoming.
Amendment No. 1184
I rise today to address amendment No. 1184 offered by my friend from
Texas, my former attorney general colleague, Senator Cornyn.
I will oppose this amendment. It is not entirely without merit in
every one of its many dimensions, but it would undercut the fundamental
principles of due process which are a longstanding and vital hallmark
of our legal system. I fully support the creation of new grounds for
inadmissibility to the United States for convicted sex offenders, gang
members, repeat DUI offenders, and for individuals who have been
convicted of firearms offenses and domestic violence. I have prosecuted
these crimes. I have a firsthand understanding of how dangerous these
criminals are. Simply stated, America's doors should not be opened to
people who commit such crimes. If Senator Cornyn believes there are
loopholes, I am happy to plug them, although I would note that the
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, the President,
and others seem satisfied.
For that reason, I will support the alternative amendment offered by
Senator Kennedy which would add these offenses and others to the
grounds for inadmissibility.
There is a right way to ensure dangerous criminals don't enter the
country and there is a wrong way. Unfortunately, the amendment we are
debating goes about it the wrong way. Let me explain.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, good moral character is a
prerequisite for a variety of benefits and privileges, the most
important being naturalization. Therefore, the law lists a series of
characteristics which exclude a person from the definition of ``good
moral character'': for example, a person whose income is derived
principally from gambling or one who has given false testimony for the
purpose of obtaining benefits or one who has been convicted of an
aggravated felony. This, of course, makes perfect sense. These
individuals as a general rule should not get on a path to
naturalization.
But this amendment would change the definition of ``good moral
character'' in a very novel and unsettling way: It would exclude from
that definition one who the Secretary of Homeland Security or the
Attorney General determines, in the unreviewable discretion of the
Secretary or the Attorney General, to have been at any time an alien
described in section 212(a)(3) or 237(a)(4). These sections list a
series of security-related grounds under which
[[Page S7107]]
an alien is excludable or deportable. Those grounds, sensibly enough,
include espionage, sabotage, terrorist activity, and any other unlawful
activity. Anyone convicted of such offenses or even indicted for such
offenses should be, of course, excludable. But that is not what this
amendment says. This amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Attorney General unreviewable discretion to make a
determination as to good moral character.
First, as I have previously said, I am not inclined to expand the
powers of the current Attorney General in any substantive way, much
less to expand his power to make important unreviewable decisions.
Setting aside my grave hesitation about this particular Attorney
General, as a general rule, I don't believe we ought to prevent judges
from reviewing important decisions which can affect life, liberty, and
property. This would violate one of the most fundamental principles of
American democracy--judicial review, a principle we have honored for
centuries.
The second issue is even more unsettling. That is, under the proposed
amendment, a person could be determined to lack ``good moral
character'' if the unreviewable decision is made that he or she is
``described in'' these two specific sections of the immigration code.
``Described in,'' what exactly does it mean to be ``described in'' a
statute? Not ``convicted'' under a statute, not ``in violation'' of a
statute, not ``indicted'' under a statute but merely ``described in''
it.
Who knows what it means? I have found no precedent for this
formulation. Is it consistent with American values to grant the
Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security the
unreviewable discretion to say that a person is ``described in'' those
statutes; the unreviewable power to say that somebody is engaged in
``unlawful activity''; and the unreviewable power to then deny them the
benefits and privileges of American law?
That is not my experience as a prosecutor. I found due process to be
important and valuable.
The amendment does not stop there. It would allow this unreviewable
discretion to be based on evidence which the accused would never have
the opportunity to confront.
Madam President, like you, I have spent my professional life in the
American legal system, a good deal of it I spent as a U.S. attorney and
as an attorney general. My experience is that our American system of
law stands on some fundamental principles, among them that people can
be aware of the charges brought against them, that people have an
opportunity to confront the evidence used against them, that the
prosecution and the judge are not rolled into one, and that we have
judicial review of important decisions affecting people's rights and
privileges. These are basic principles, and they represent core
American values.
I do not know why we have to keep getting up to defend this. This is
bedrock stuff. From the suspension of habeas corpus, to the
administration's legal defense of torture, to ``extraordinary
rendition,'' and so on, we have seen relentless efforts to chip away at
bedrock principles of American law. With this amendment, there they go
again.
Of course, we must do everything proper and necessary to protect our
borders and keep Americans safe. But to throw out the separation
between prosecution and judge, to throw out the opportunity to
understand and explain evidence used against you, to throw out our
ancient principle of judicial review, to allow Government officials to
take away rights and privileges without answering to anyone? I do not
think so.
These principles are too dear to be thrown away so lightly. Our
country has been through a lot over the years, and these principles
have survived and flourished, to lie today in our hands, in our
stewardship, to protect and to pass on, as they were passed on to us.
I do not think this immigration issue is so terrifying that we need
to throw these principles away now over immigration. We are made of
sterner stuff than that.
I ask my colleagues to oppose Senator Cornyn's amendment No. 1184.
I thank Senator Kennedy, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Alabama 10
minutes from our allotted time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator's comments
about American law and principles. As a former U.S. attorney and
attorney general, I share the general view. He mentions the historic
privileges we have in America. But let me tell you, no one has a right
to enter the United States of America. We decide who comes in and who
does not.
That is a core principle of sovereignty. Every Nation in the world
makes those decisions, if they are a functioning state, and you then
allow people to enter on your terms, on whatever conditions they may
be. The condition may be, you can enter as long as you are enrolled in
a college, you can enter for a certain period of time, you can enter on
a tourist visa to do a certain number of things.
But those conditions are not such that if you say someone cannot come
here you violated the laws of America. If you say you can come to
America but not if you have a history of being a sexual predator, what
right does that violate? What principle of American law does that
violate? I suggest none. We have every right to insist and ensure the
immigration system of the United States serves the national interest.
The national interest means you do not allow people to continue to stay
in our country or to come to our country who have repeat DUIs or who
sell drugs or who are associated with terrorists. How basic is that?
Nobody has a constitutional legal right to demand entry into the United
States of America. How much more basic can it be than that?
So that is where we are confused. It amazes me the lack of
understanding and comprehension of what it is all about. We set the
standards. We have the most generous immigration laws of almost any
country in the world. It has been a big part of our heritage. We are
not going to end immigration. Nobody wants to do that, or to act
irrationally, and so forth.
But to set reasonable standards, as Senator Cornyn is attempting to
do with his amendment, only makes common sense. For example, I have
mentioned some of the loopholes. He fixes them. I give him every bit of
credit for this: for standing firm, for insisting on this vote, after
he has been objected to and objected to and blocked from getting his
vote. But he stood firm on this issue. He is going to fix a number of
the problems I wish to briefly mention.
Some aggravated felons who have sexually abused a minor are eligible
for amnesty under this bill. They have no entitlement to amnesty.
Nobody has entitlement to amnesty, whether they are perfectly wonderful
citizens and all that. They are not entitled to that. This is a gift we
give. So why would you want to give that to somebody who sexually
abused a minor?
Well, the child molester who committed the crime, before this bill is
enacted, is not barred from getting amnesty if their conviction
document omitted the age of the victim. If the conviction document did
not put the age down, then they are to be admitted under this bill.
After there was some objection to it, they fixed that language for the
future but did not fix it for the past or current convictions. So I
think Senator Cornyn is correct. I support that portion of his
amendment very strongly.
Another provision is that aliens with terrorism connections under
this legislation are not barred from getting amnesty. They do not have
a right to stay here. If we have any suggestion that someone in this
country, now here, or someone who wants to come here is connected to
terrorists, they do not have to be admitted. What kind of right do they
have to demand to be admitted? If our State Department, in some country
around the world, has information that a person is connected to
terrorism, they do not have any right to demand to come here. They come
at our pleasure, our sufferance.
So one of the things this bill, as written, does is it says an
illegal alien seeking most of the immigration benefits must show good
character. But last
[[Page S7108]]
year's bill--let me say this on the terrorism question--specifically
barred aliens with terrorism connections from having the required good
moral character to enter the United States. That is one of the things
we say. You cannot come here unless you have good moral character. You
cannot come here if you are a felon, a thief, a drug dealer or a child
molester. Surely, that would make sense. So this bill eliminated that.
Another example, surprisingly, of this bill being weaker even than
last year's fatally flawed bill: The bill's drafters have ignored the
Bush administration's request that changes be made to the asylum,
cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal statutes in order
to prevent aliens with terrorist connections from receiving relief. The
bill drafters were told about this by the Bush administration and were
urged to put different language in, and they refused to do so, for
reasons I cannot fathom.
But it begins to show a certain mindset. I think that mindset is we
are somehow here to represent people who want to come into our country
and stay in our country instead of representing the American people and
the interests of the United States.
Last year, we had good moral character as a requirement. Good moral
character involved not being connected to terrorists. But according to
current law, an alien cannot have good moral character if they are a
habitual drunkard, a majority of their income comes from illegal
gambling, giving false testimony for immigration benefit purposes, they
have been in jail for 180 days, they have been convicted of an
aggravated felony or they have engaged in genocide, torture, or
extrajudicial killings. That is current law we have. But this year's
bill is completely missing these new terrorism bars that were in last
year's bill, and the bill no longer requires good moral character. That
is a matter that leaves us at greater risk than we need to be. It
concerns me.
Another example. Instead of ensuring that members of violent gangs,
such as MS-13, are deported, the bill will allow violent gang members
to get amnesty as long as they renounce their gang membership on their
application. That is the current law. Under the bill, being in a
violent gang is not going to prevent you from qualifying for amnesty.
The bill requires amnesty applicants to list--to list--you are required
to list that gang membership on your application. Then you get a blank
that says ``renunciation of gang affiliation.'' So if you check that
blank and say you renounce it, then you get to stay in, perhaps.
So why don't we allow this: If an illegal alien has been a member of
a violent international gang, such as Mara Salvatrucha 13, MS-13, why
don't we say that blocks him or her from being eligible for the amnesty
in the bill? Loyalty to the United States should be the requirement,
not loyalty to some outside gang that is violent.
The night before last, I happened to turn on C-SPAN and catch a
National Press Club conference by a series of law enforcement officers
involved in the Border Patrol, the former chairman of the Border
Patrol. They were ferocious in their criticism of this bill. I was
surprised how strongly they felt about it.
Hugh Brien, himself an immigrant, was Chief of the Border Patrol from
1986 to 1989. He called the bill a sellout, a complete betrayal of the
Nation, a slap in the face to millions of Americans who have come here
legally like he had done. In 1986, he recalled: ``Our masters, our
mandarins promised it would work.'' Of course, the 1986 bill did not.
He also said, based on his experience in many years with the Border
Patrol: ``It's a disaster.''
Kent Lundgren, the national chairman of the Association of Former
Border Patrol Officers, said this: ``There are no meaningful criminal
or terrorist checks'' in the legislation. He noted that the ``screening
will not happen.'' He added Congress is lying about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair and support the
Cornyn amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-one minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
First, I salute my colleague from Massachusetts for his undaunted,
courageous, and effective leadership on this issue, which is one of the
most difficult issues we face. I think he has the respect of everybody
in this body for that--the Senator from Massachusetts does--whether
they agree or disagree with the bill.
Now, I rise in opposition to the Cornyn amendment and in support of
the Kennedy alternative amendment No. 1333. There certainly are
attractive parts of the Cornyn amendment, but the good parts of the
amendment are buried in complicated language that strikes at the heart
of the comprehensive immigration bill many of us are working hard to
pass. At a minimum, my colleague's amendment would have the effect of
stripping the path to citizenship, one of the mainstays of the
compromise--one of the two mainstays of the compromise--out of the bill
altogether. This body has already rejected that approach outright. It
ought not do it now by stealth. It is a Trojan horse--nothing short of
an attempt to kill the whole bill in the guise of tough enforcement.
My colleagues know when it comes to tough enforcement, whether it is
on immigrants, citizens, or anyone else, I don't yield to anybody. I am
a tough-on-crime guy. I come from an area that was ravaged by crime,
and the works of the Federal Government, State government, and city
government helped make the communities I represent much safer.
What we do in the Kennedy amendment is keep the tough enforcement
without killing the bill. Let me repeat that. What we do in this
amendment is keep the tough enforcement--it is all there--but we don't
kill the bill. We don't eliminate the path to citizenship which is, of
course, what the Cornyn amendment does and may well be intended to do.
If we are serious about passing the best possible bill and passing a
bill that makes good sense, we should support the Kennedy amendment and
not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We all want a bill that is
tough on people who have broken the law, and we all want a bill that
keeps people who should not be let into the United States in the first
place from coming here.
Senator Kennedy's amendment is both tough and smart. It changes the
law to prevent the worst criminals from getting into the country and
kicks out people who shouldn't be here, and it picks out the best parts
of the Cornyn amendment and leaves out the worst.
Like Senator Cornyn's amendment, Senator Kennedy's amendment says any
new immigrant who has participated in a criminal gang in any way,
shape, or form can't come live in the United States, period. It doesn't
wait for a felony conviction or anything else. If you are in a gang,
you can't come in, and you can't become a citizen. Any immigrant in the
United States who has been a member of a gang can be deported. That is
how it should be. Also, Senator Kennedy's amendment cracks down on gang
members who violate our gun laws.
Under Senator Kennedy's amendment, aliens who have committed the
horrible crimes of domestic violence--stalking, child abuse, child
neglect, or child abandonment, and who have been sent to jail for a
year--are barred from moving to the country or from attempting to
naturalize as citizens. The amendment provides that sex offenders who
don't register can't immigrate or come work here, and convicted sex
offenders who don't register get deported.
The amendment would keep drunk drivers from immigrating to the United
States. Just one felony conviction for drunk driving and you are out.
People who try to sneak into the country, illegally cross the border,
or lie to immigration agents will face steep fines and jail time, as
the bill provides, as this body ratified last week.
The amendment has tough penalties for repeat offenders. An alien who
tries
[[Page S7109]]
to enter the country after being convicted of a serious penalty can
face up to 20 years in jail under the amendment.
So this is one tough amendment. But, again, it doesn't seek by
stealth, as the Cornyn amendment does, to eliminate the bill
altogether. Some of the things in this amendment are exactly like the
language in Senator Cornyn's amendment. Senator Kennedy's amendment
takes the best of the Cornyn amendment and leaves out the parts that
will gut or decapitate the bill. A vote for the Kennedy alternative is
a vote for tough enforcement but also smart policy.
Madam President, I yield back the remaining time to my colleague and
friend from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, customarily, as a manager of the bill,
I control time, but I think now the time is in whose hands? I ask for
12 minutes of time, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, may I inquire whether the Senator
intends to speak for or against the--
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. CORNYN. I think that takes care of it. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I was about to say some nice things
about the Senator from Texas, and I still will. He has been a very
active and constructive participant in the consideration of immigration
reform. In the 109th Congress he was very much involved and contributed
greatly. We didn't always agree on a number of items, but he is very
sincere, very studious, very thoughtful, and very constructive, and he
continues in that role, although as is evident, there are some
differences as to our approach. But I commend the Senator from Texas
for what he has done and for what he continues to do here.
I am in favor of the alternative to the Cornyn amendment. I say that
because we have structured the bill with a great many compromises.
While I might be inclined to agree with the Senator from Texas on some
of the specifics that he has enumerated which would be a bar to
citizenship, there was a tremendous amount of give-and-take in the
structuring of this bill so that I am standing with the committee
bill--strike that. We don't have a committee bill. I wish we did. But I
am supporting the bill which came out of the lengthy consultation with
about a dozen principal Senators participating. There are a number of
specifics, in the amendment which is side by side, which I think are
preferable to the amendment by the Senator from Texas.
Illustrative of this preference is that the Senator from Texas makes
a third conviction for drunk driving a crime of violence. Well, it may
be a crime of violence, or it may not be a crime of violence. The
alternative which has been proposed would make drunk driving a grounds
for inadmissibility and deportability, providing the alien serves at
least a year in prison. From my days as district attorney, I have seen
quite a number of cases involving drunk driving, for example, and while
I don't condone multiple convictions, I think it is a more appropriate
ground that there be inadmissibility or deportability where the drunk
driving was serious enough to call for a year in jail.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas also strips judicial
review of findings that an alien is barred on national security
grounds. From what we have seen about this issue in many contexts,
there needs to be judicial review, although in a different context. In
the last few days we have seen the Military Commission conclude that it
had no jurisdiction because of problems with the indicting procedure
with respect to whether one is an enemy alien or an unlawful enemy
alien. This points to the necessity for judicial review, which would be
excluded by the Cornyn amendment.
The Cornyn amendment also would deport or prevent citizenship for
someone who has ever violated a protective order. Well, it is a good
bit more complicated than that. The alternative amendment provides that
there would be an analysis. It would exclude people convicted of a
felony domestic violation, but there would be a consideration about
whether, on a protective order, the alien was acting in self-defense,
along with other considerations, in fact. Most fundamentally, the
Cornyn amendment would strip the authority of the Departments, the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, to waive
certain grounds which would warrant deportation or inadmissibility.
That discretion, which is lodged in the alternative, enables a fuller
review of the facts. It gives a chance to really look beyond some of
the technical categorizations which might appear ominous on their face,
but which, after there is a detailed review of what has happened on the
underlying factors, might reveal there ought not to be inadmissibility
or deportation. That discretion ought to remain with responsible
officials in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
Justice.
It is for those reasons, but fundamentally because the pending
legislation was crafted with a great many compromises, that I favor the
substitute and oppose the Cornyn amendment.
I would like to address something which is more fundamental and very
serious, as we have had a statement by the majority leader that if
cloture is not invoked tomorrow at 6 o'clock, he will take down this
bill.
I think that would be grossly erroneous. I think that would be very
bad procedure. If you compare what was done last year in the 109th
Congress with what we have done in this Congress, you would see there
was much more consideration in the last Congress than has been afforded
this bill at this time.
For example, in the 109th Congress, we worked the bill through the
committee. We did not work this bill through the committee. That was a
leadership decision. I have stated on the Senate floor on several
occasions the concern of not having gone through committee; that it was
probably a mistake. Well, if this bill is taken down because we haven't
made sufficient progress in the eyes of the majority leader, there is
no doubt it would be a mistake because had we gone through committee,
we would have worked through so many of these issues which we have had
to legislate on the floor.
In the 109th Congress, the Judiciary Committee, which I chaired, had
6 days of committee markups. They were tough and laborious days, and we
dealt with 59 amendments. We returned one Monday after a recess when
the majority leader said he would proceed with the substitute bill, and
a Monday back after a recess is a very tough day. But on March 27,
2006, the committee made a special effort to reconvene. We had a
quorum, believe it or not, by 10 o'clock in the morning, and we worked
through, laboriously, until the evening when we reported out a bill.
That is what happened during the markup, 6 days of markup in the
committee where, as I say, we considered some 59 amendments.
Then, when we moved to the floor of the Senate, we had 12 days on the
bill. We had 4 days before cloture failed, and then we came back with 8
days more and considered in excess of 50 total votes--some rollcall,
some voice votes--in passing the bill out of the U.S. Senate.
Now, contrast that with what we have had up to the present time. We
have been on the bill 8 days, and 3 of those days were Mondays or
Fridays pro forma without voting. We have only had 5 days where we have
been involved in voting. Even on those days, they have not been as
productive as voting days were on the bill in the 109th Congress
because we have been in quorum calls. We have been negotiating. We have
been trying to work through issues that, had this bill gone through
committee, would have been resolved some time ago.
So you have a comparison of, really, 5 days, plus 3 days of pro
forma, 8 at the most, contrasted with 12 days before. It is more
accurately a comparison of 12 to 5--12 in the last Congress where we
legislated and where we passed the bill. Here, where we have voted on
only 21 amendments, contrasted with more than 50 we voted on in the
last Congress.
We have also had a tremendous amount of Senators' time and time of
the Secretary of Commerce and the
[[Page S7110]]
Secretary of Homeland Security. We met for 2 hours on Tuesdays,
Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and sometimes on Mondays and Fridays as
well, over a 10-week period.
It is hard to calculate how many hours were put in by Senators, but I
think it goes into the thousands. It is hard to calculate how much time
was put in by the two secretaries, but I think that goes into the
hundreds. If you talk about staff time, it is incalculable. The staff
director, Mike O'Neill, worked for about 20 days solid, including
weekends, and that was sort of par for the course.
So to pull this bill tomorrow at 6 o'clock--I think it would be hard
to find the right word that is appropriate in strength and not
overboard. But I think ``outrageous'' would be a modest comment; it
would be outrageous to pull this bill tomorrow.
One of my staffers said this bill has been the result of blood,
sweat, and fears--paraphrasing Churchill's blood, sweat, and tears--and
maybe more fears than blood and sweat. But we have come a long way. We
have already seen a lot of finger pointing on this floor. We seem to be
a lot better in the Senate at finger pointing than at legislating. But
if this bill is pulled down, then you may even see toe pointing,
because 10 fingers won't be sufficient for Republicans blaming
Democrats and the majority leader for pulling down the bill, and
Democrats blaming Republicans for a lot of dilatory amendments.
The majority leader has said these amendments are designed to kill
the bill, that the people offering the amendments don't have any
intention of voting for the bill. Senators who offer amendments don't
have to have intentions of voting for the bill. Senators can offer
amendments because they are Senators and because they think their
amendments may pass, and because, who knows, they may even think their
amendments could improve the bill. I think Senator Cornyn sincerely
believes his amendment will improve the bill.
I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ordinarily keep better track of time,
but I am a little wound up and concerned about where all of the work we
have done may end up if this bill is pulled and, more importantly,
after the work that has been done, where it would leave the immigration
mess in the United States. We have 12 million undocumented immigrants;
we don't know where they are or what risks they face. We cannot deport
them all. We have a porous border. If we don't have comprehensive
immigration reform, we are not going to put up all the fencing, the
barriers, and stop the additional people. The administration has made
commitments, and there will be more about how the funds will be spent.
We are not going to go through with employer verification. We are not
going to spend the money on foolproof identification so employers can
see who is legal and who is not legal, so that we have the basis for
imposing tough sanctions, including jail. We are not going to eliminate
the magnet to bring more people in. It will be a colossal failure.
I think it is safe to say the Senate would be the laughingstock of
the country, after all of the hyperbole and publicity and all of the
proposals and objections, if we are not able to finish this bill. It
doesn't have to be finished this week. There is next week. We are not
known for necessarily using the full week. We vote very infrequently on
Mondays, almost never on Fridays. The evening session is not really
practiced around here. When I came to the Senate with Howard Baker, we
used to have a lot of all-night sessions. One night in 1982 or 1983--I
ask for 4 more minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 more minutes to the Senator. How much time
will I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will have 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, we had a tax bill on the Senate floor,
and it was 11:45. Howard Baker, the majority leader, was consulting
with the Finance chairman, Senator Dole. There were 63 amendments
pending. Senator Baker said we are going to work through the night. He
said amendments, like mushrooms, grow overnight. So we worked through
the night. There were some amendments taken, some amendments withdrawn,
and some voted upon. It is amazing how much shorter the debate is at 3
a.m. It is also amazing how many more Senators there are on the floor
at 3 a.m. There were a lot of people on cots in the cloakroom, but a
lot of Senators were on the floor. The insomniacs outnumbered the
sleepers by 2 to 1. We had a lot of comments like you heard in
Parliament. Someone would be making an argument and there would be
cries of ``vote, vote.'' At 3 a.m. the cries of ``vote'' and the lack
of decorum carried the day.
The point is that a few more days in the Senate will not impede the
action of this body. Some of the items that are coming up on the agenda
may not merit the kind of time and attention the immigration bill does.
The American people are obviously sick and tired of the bickering in
the Congress and in the Senate, sick and tired of the kind of finger
pointing, and there will be an awful lot of it if we fail to legislate
on this matter. The bill may be voted down. I think the bill will pass
if we stick with it. Certainly, we ought to carry it through to
conclusion.
I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me the extra
time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I rise today to discuss amendment No.
1313, an amendment that I will offer to the immigration reform bill,
which will address what I believe are two crucial flaws in this
legislation. The first flaw relates to what some people may call
amnesty, wherein the bill legalizes almost everyone who entered this
country by the beginning of this year. The second flaw relates to an
unworkable set of procedures applicable to those who are properly
offered legal status. It is important to the health and practicality of
our system that these two flaws be addressed.
My amendment would achieve three critically important goals: it
creates a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have
truly put down roots in America; it protects the legitimate interests
of all working Americans; and it accords honor and dignity to the
concept of true American justice.
If one accepts the premises of these three goals, then I strongly
believe that this amendment is the best way forward.
As a general matter, I agree with my colleagues that the time has
come for fair and balanced reform of our broken immigration system.
When I say ``fairness,'' I mean a system of laws that is fair to
everyone here in the United States and especially our wage earners.
I strongly support the provisions in this immigration bill that
strengthen our Nation's borders. Our porous borders are a threat to our
national security, and we have waited far too long to fix this problem.
I also support the sections of the bill that create tough civil and
criminal penalties for employers who unfairly hire illegal immigrants,
creating both a second-class population and undercutting American
workers. The bill's employment verification system will help ensure
that illegal workers cannot get employment in the United States and
would therefore face little choice but to return to their homelands.
As a point of reference, I do not support this bill's creation of a
massive new temporary worker program. Two weeks ago, I voted to support
Senator Dorgan's two amendments to strike and sunset that program, and
I find it regrettable that the Senate did not adopt those amendments.
We have seen a good bit of analysis on the Senate floor in recent
days to the effect that the temporary worker program will be largely
unworkable. To the extent that it would work, it would create a wage-
based underclass and a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, as I stated
on the floor 2 weeks ago, I believe that guest worker programs--aside
from purely temporary, seasonal work--drive down the wages of hard-
working Americans and of those who came here by following the law.
With those points in mind, I now turn to my amendment, which regards
the other major component of this bill--the legalization program.
[[Page S7111]]
My amendment reflects a proposal that I have been discussing with
Virginians ever since I began my campaign for the Senate. I have always
supported tough border security and cracking down on large employers
who hire illegal workers. I also have always supported a path to
legalization for those who came here during a time of extremely lax
immigration laws but who have laid down strong roots in their
communities. I do not, however, favor this path to citizenship for all
undocumented persons.
Under the provisions of the immigration bill we are debating,
virtually all undocumented persons currently living in the United
States would be eligible to legalize their status and ultimately become
U.S. citizens. Estimates are that this number totals 12 million to 20
million people. This is legislative overkill. It is one of the reasons
that this bill has aroused the passions of ordinary Americans who have
no opposition to reasonable immigration policies but who see this as an
issue that goes against the grain of basic fairness, which is the very
foundation of our society.
By contrast, my amendment would allow a smaller percentage of
undocumented persons to remain in the United States and legalize their
status, based on the depth of a person's roots in their community.
Under my proposal, undocumented persons who have lived in the United
States at least 4 years prior to enactment of the bill could apply to
legalize their status. I note that this 4-year period is even more
generous than the 5-year threshold that was contained in several bills
in the past few Congresses--bills that were supported by Senators from
both parties and by immigrants' rights groups.
After receiving the application, the Department of Homeland Security
would evaluate a list of objective, measurable criteria to determine
whether the applicant should receive a Z visa and thus be allowed to
get on the path to citizenship.
The statutory criteria to be considered would be work history,
payment of Federal or State income taxes, property ownership and
business ownership in the United States, knowledge of English,
attendance at U.S. schools, immediate family members in the United
States, whether the applicant has a criminal record, and whether the
applicant wants to become a U.S. citizen.
Like the underlying bill, applicants would be given probationary
status while the DHS considers their Z visa application and could
lawfully work during this probationary status period.
I believe these provisions are fair to our immigrant population and
also that they will help us avoid the mistakes this Congress made in
1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, which resulted in a tidal
wave of illegal immigration.
My amendment would also make the underlying bill more practical.
It strikes the bill's unrealistic ``touchback'' requirement. Few
immigrants would have the money or the ability to return to their home
countries on other continents. Most of these persons would lose their
U.S. jobs, leaving their families in turmoil and placing further strain
on our communities. Basic fairness dictates that these persons be
allowed to apply for a green card from within the United States.
I believe that my amendment sets forth an equitable system that not
only recognizes the contributions of immigrants to our society but also
introduces practical measures that will help us avoid the same mistakes
our country made in 1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill.
I have heard loud and clear from Virginians, and I have talked with
people on all sides of this issue. What I hear over and over again is
that Congress should find a fair system that both protects American
workers and respects the rule of law. This amendment represents the
fairest method I know to do so and to do so realistically.
I ask you all to support amendment No. 1313 when it comes for a vote
in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield as a point of interest?
Mr. CORNYN. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I think I have 6\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am trying to get some information to the Senators who
will follow along. Does the Senator plan to use the remainder of his
time? I am not trying to hurry him; it is only for information
purposes.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I agree it is a good idea to try to give
our colleagues notice as to when a vote will occur. I am happy to agree
we can have the vote at 11:45. I probably will not use all of my time,
but it depends on how wound up I get.
Mr. KENNEDY. Why don't we sort of move along but indicate to our
colleagues that we are reaching a conclusion and we expect votes fairly
soon. Then we will have follow-on amendments with Senator DeMint and,
hopefully, Senator Bingaman. If we can work those out in the next 20
minutes or so, we can get stacked votes; otherwise, we plan to have
these two votes reasonably soon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of Senators, the vote will
occur at approximately 11:55 if some time is not yielded back.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we have a number of speakers who have
commented. I appreciate the wise comments of the Senator from
Pennsylvania, and I am not talking about the part where he was
complimentary of me; I am talking about his comments on the process and
the difficulty, since this bill came to the floor without going through
committee, of providing an adequate opportunity for debate and
amendments. We have all tried to work our way through this.
I do concur it is a terrible mistake in judgment to seek to close off
debate on this bill before an adequate opportunity for votes occurs. We
have had, by my count--and I could be off one or two--nine rollcall
votes on this bill. By way of comparison, when the McCain-Kennedy bill,
which later became the Hagel-Martinez bill, was on the floor last year,
we had 32 rollcall votes, I believe. We need to have an adequate
opportunity to flesh this out. As we have seen here, some of these
details get very technical, but they have a profound consequence in
terms of the outcome.
Let me speak to some of the specific items that have been raised
here. As we pointed out, first, there will be a vote on the Kennedy
amendment, and then there will be a vote on the Cornyn amendment. With
all due respect, I call the first one a watered-down version of the
second one. I will point out the differences now, in part.
The Kennedy amendment would still allow waivers to allow members of
gangs to become legalized under the provisions of this bill. The
Kennedy bill would still allow sex offenders to not be barred if they
were sentenced to less than 6 months. The Kennedy bill would still
allow waivers for firearms offenses; that is, allow people who have
been convicted of firearms offenses to get a waiver and to be allowed
legal status.
My amendment covers those who are associated with terrorist
organizations. Those innocents referred to under the material support
provisions are covered by a waiver executed by the Department of State
and Department of Homeland Security.
As we can see, this gets exceedingly technical. Let me focus on sex
offenders, by way of example, to point out why these differences are
important. My amendment would bar those who have failed to register as
sex offenders from becoming eligible for a Z visa and legal permanent
residency status and a path to American citizenship. We have spoken in
Congress on this issue through such legislation as the Adam Walsh Act.
We have made it clear we will monitor and lock up those sex offenders
who don't follow the rules and bar sex offenders from bringing
individuals into the country whom they may also harm.
Yet the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, would still give those sex offenders
who fail to register a loophole to exploit if they can plea bargain
their case to less than 6
[[Page S7112]]
months. The maximum penalty for the underlying offense is no more than
1 year. All of us who have had experience in the legal system,
particularly with the criminal law system, understand plea bargains are
a way of life and it may well be a very serious sex offender will have
plea bargained an indictment against him or her to less than 6 months,
and still be allowed entry into the United States under the Kennedy
amendment.
Here is what the Kennedy amendment does. On page 20 of the amendment,
it modifies the exceptions to the criminal bars admissibility by adding
failure to register as a sex offender and firearm offenses to the list
of offenses excepted from the criminal bars to accessibility.
Why would we allow this loophole? We just got this amendment last
night, of course. We have not been able to survey the sex offender
registry laws of all 50 States. We know there is at least one State--
New York--where first-time failure to register a conviction is a class
A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year.
My simple question is: Why would we want to employ a loophole for sex
offenders and allow them to gain the benefits under this bill by being
eligible for a Z visa, with a path to legal permanent residency,
potentially, and American citizenship?
My amendment makes clear--unlike the Kennedy amendment--that all
these loopholes are closed and this is not possible. I cannot imagine
that the American people would feel, among the many other people who
are arguably worthy of gaining benefits under this bill, we would want
to demean what we are doing here by providing these benefits to people
who so clearly have shown themselves unworthy of getting those
benefits.
I will point out that I know we have had a big debate in this country
and in the Senate about what constitutes amnesty. I think the problem
is the American people--many of them--don't feel we are serious about
restoring the rule of law when it comes to our broken immigration
system. I don't mean for a minute to impugn the good faith of Senators
who have labored long and hard to try to bring this bill to the floor,
and those of us who are trying to improve it, to make it better. But by
way of example, these are the sorts of offenses that ordinarily would
be punishable under our laws but which are completely ignored when it
comes to applicants for a Z visa--and that is the 12 million or so who
are here--who have committed these acts.
Anyone who has entered the country without being inspected or
admitted; that is, who came across the border before January 1, 2007,
this bill would make eligible for a Z visa.
Any alien who failed to show up for his or her removal proceeding
without just cause would be eligible for legal status under this bill.
Any alien; that is, any noncitizen, who, through fraud or willful
misrepresentation, got a visa or other document or admitted to the
United States would be eligible for a Z visa.
Any individual who makes a false claim to U.S. citizenship--this is
an independent offense against our criminal laws--would be eligible for
a Z visa.
Any noncitizen who was a stowaway who made their way into the United
States, anyone who is the subject of a civil penalty for document fraud
would be eligible under this bill for legalization and a Z visa.
Any alien who, when trying to enter the country, did not have the
proper documents, visa, passport, border-crossing card, et cetera; any
alien who remained unlawfully in the United States for less than a
year, left the United States before removal, and then tried to reenter
in a 3-year period would be eligible for a Z visa under this bill, or
was in the United States unlawfully continuously for more than a year,
then tried to reenter the United States within 10 years after leaving
or being removed from the United States. It gets a little convoluted,
but that person would be eligible for a Z visa or legalization and
potentially a path to legal permanent residency and American
citizenship.
Under this bill, any alien who, after previously violating
immigration laws, for example, crossed the border multiple times and
remained unlawfully in the United States for an aggregate of a year or
more under this bill would be eligible for legalization under a Z visa,
potentially eligible for legal permanent residency and American
citizenship.
Any alien who came with another alien who is not admissible to the
United States who is certified as helpless due to sickness, disease,
and disability and requires the protection or guardianship of an alien.
That is one more example of the kind of offenses which ordinarily we
would punish under our laws which are waived and not considered when it
comes to eligibility of the Z visa.
I don't think it is particularly productive on the floor of the
Senate to talk about what is amnesty and what is not, but let me talk
about the more basic consideration and one reason I think my
constituents in Texas have expressed such strong concerns about it. It
is really exemplified in the debate we are having on the Cornyn and
Kennedy amendments. Are we serious about restoring respect for the law
or are we going to simply turn a blind eye to violations in the future?
What we are being told by the proponents of this bill--and I believe
they in good faith believe this, but it is unfortunate that the bill
language itself does not appear to bear out that optimism and hope when
it comes to the enforceability--is that this is, as in 1986, the last
time we are going to do this. If we deal with the 12 million people who
have come into the country without a visa or who have entered legally
and who have overstayed their visa, if we give them an opportunity to
get a Z visa, this is it, last time, it will never happen again. That
sounds ominously similar to what the American people were told in 1986
when there were 3 million people in that category. Now we have 12
million in that category.
So the question people have, logically--these are not racists, these
are not bigots, they are not nativists, they are not anti-immigrants;
these are American citizens who are concerned about their country and
about being a country that respects the rule of law--they want to know:
Is this going to work? Will it be enforced? Are we serious about
restoring the rule of law to our country?
I have to say that the sort of fine and requirement that is being
required with the Z visa is looked at with great skepticism. Last week,
I had a constituent who said: Well, Senator, are you telling me that we
are going to allow people who have not respected our immigration laws
to pay $5,000, in effect, to buy legal status and then potentially
apply for legal permanent residency and then become an American
citizen? Who wouldn't go for that kind of deal? That caused me a lot of
concern because I, frankly, had not thought about it in those terms.
But what causes me even greater concern is the concept that is
missing from this legislation that is so important; that is, when it
comes to our laws, we believe in the role of deterrence. In other
words, when we provide a penalty to somebody for violating the law, one
of the considerations is, will it deter people from acting in a similar
capacity in the future?
I am afraid, when I look at this legislation, it completely omits any
consideration of what will deter people from violating our immigration
laws in the future. In fact, I am afraid what happens, as pointed out
by my constituent, is that it is really viewed as an incentive. If all
you have to do is to get into the country any way you can and then wait
for the next bill to pass Congress which will allow you to pay a fine
and then become legally here and on a path to legal permanent residency
and citizenship, that is no deterrent. That is a powerful magnet which
will continue to attract people to our country.
I say this not in any spirit except to say we have to find a way to
fix this. I have been one who wants to try to fix this legislation. The
amendments I have offered are in that spirit. But I have to say that we
are going to continue to be viewed as nonserious about workability,
about enforcement, about restoring respect for the rule of law unless
we vote to exclude those who have shown nothing but defiance for our
laws by absconding, by going underground even after having their day in
court and refusing an order of deportation, or those who have been
deported following a day in court, following all the rights our country
provides for judicial review and administrative review and who simply
left to only reenter again illegally.
[[Page S7113]]
As I mentioned at the outset, the Immigration and Naturalization Act
makes both those categories of individuals felons--felons. This is not
a misdemeanor. This is not an inadvertency. These are not people,
frankly, who are entitled to the generosity of the American people when
it comes to dealing with their legal status. These are people who
showed they have nothing but contempt for our laws, for restoring the
rule of law, and I just cannot imagine why any Member of the Senate
would vote to give these individuals a path to legal residence and a
path to potentially American citizenship.
If we are going to regain that lost credibility--and I think this is
really where the rubber meets the road because, frankly, people across
this country don't really believe we are serious about making this
work. They are used to a history of being overpromised and undersold
when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system. But I believe
there is going to be a high price to pay for those of us who are still
around in the coming years if, in fact, we pass this law knowing that
it has these huge, gaping loopholes that excuse unlawful conduct, which
is basically thumbing their noses at the rule of law. If we are not
serious about making sure people who go through background checks are
actually not criminals or terrorists, if we are not serious about
making this work, there is going to be a high price to pay for those
who support this legislation only in the coming years to find that it
was another scam pulled on the American people.
That is why it is so absolutely critical that we continue this
debate, and I implore the majority leader to allow us to continue the
debate, to allow us to have amendments offered. I understand and we all
understand in this country that you win some and you lose some,
majorities rule, but that is what we ought to be doing on this bill to
make it as good as we possibly can to try to regain the respect and the
trust of the American people because, frankly, we don't have it now.
That is the reason for the outcry we have heard in my State and around
the country when it comes to this legislation.
We can fix it. I am an optimist, but we cannot fix it if there is not
an opportunity for a full and fair debate and if the majority leader is
determined to cut off the opportunity to provide votes on amendments
and is going to insist on ``my way or the highway''; in other words,
you are either going to have to agree to not let your amendments be
heard and to let this bill go to a final vote or the majority leader is
going to pull it down and deny us the opportunity to fix this problem.
I don't know anyone in the Senate who doesn't want to fix this
problem. It is enormously complicated because this problem has festered
for 20 years or more without a solution. That is no excuse for not
trying, and that is why I have tried, along with my colleagues, to come
up with an acceptable solution. I would say 90 percent of it we agree
with. There is no light separating us. It is in the 10 percent we
talked about that is the subject of important amendments which need to
be heard and voted on where we can regain that trust.
Let me say in conclusion--and I may reserve a little bit of time--let
me say before I sit down, Mr. President, that a ``no'' vote on the
Cornyn amendment and a ``yes'' vote on the Kennedy amendment will, in
essence, could retitle this section of this bill ``No Felon Left
Behind'' because while we have excluded many categories of felons, we
have, for some reason, left this big, gaping hole when it comes to
those who show nothing but contempt for our laws. We need to fix this
bill, we need to make it better, not make it worse, and we have an
uphill climb to regain credibility of the American people to show we
are serious and we want to restore our reputation as a nation that
believes in the rule of law. A ``no'' vote on the Cornyn amendment will
do nothing to help it; indeed, I think it will confirm the worst
suspicions of the American people--that we really are not serious about
fixing this problem.
Mr. President, I yield the floor but reserve the remainder of our
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator's
presentation. I have come to a different conclusion. The Senator said a
``no'' vote means we are really not for dealing with this issue. We
have a bipartisan group that has worked long and hard. The Senator from
Texas was involved in a lot of the discussions. As we pointed out
previously, we wanted to have tough law enforcement internally. We
wanted recognition that those 12.5 million people here were going to be
able to be secure, they weren't going to be deported, they were going
to go to the end of the line, they would have to go through the earned
legalization program, bring families together again, set up a program
in terms of a temporary worker program. I don't know what 90 percent
the Senator agrees with because I haven't heard much.
What is important is what his amendment does and what its impact
would be.
We ought to come back at the conclusion of this debate to the point
that was raised at the beginning because after all the rhetoric, after
all is said and done, listen to the example that was given by my friend
from Illinois.
Senator Durbin describes a mother of four U.S. citizens, married to a
U.S. citizen, who is herself undocumented. She left the country to
visit her sick mother. She was apprehended after she snuck back in.
That means she has reentered the United States at least twice, and
under the Cornyn amendment on page 2, she could be convicted of illegal
reentry. That would make her an aggregated felon. Even if she is not
convicted, the Cornyn amendment makes her ineligible for the Z program.
On page 10 of the amendment, he eliminates the waiver for final
orders available in the bill. This is a waiver for hardship to family,
and he eliminates it. No harm, the Senator says, because she can get a
different waiver as the wife of a U.S. citizen. That didn't stop DHS
from deporting her.
So why should people come out of the shadows? Why should they come
out of the shadows if they are here with false papers, undocumented?
Why should they come out of the shadows when they have seen what has
happened to a mother of four citizens married to an American
citizen? That is what we are basically talking about. That is
undermining the basic core because we are talking about 12\1/2\ million
people who are here, who came here to work in order to provide for
their families, and they have been trying to do that for their
families. More often than not, they probably went back to their
countries of origin and came back in again. Probably more often than
not they had false papers in order to be able to get their jobs. That
in and of itself, under the Cornyn amendment, would effectively exclude
them from participating in this program and would subject them to
deportation. End of story. End of story because that undermines,
obviously, the essential aspect of this legislation.
The rest of the Cornyn amendment--which I mentioned earlier with the
list of the amendments that we have put through--covers the bars, the
criminal gang members, including the new provisions of gang members
engaged in gun crimes. Sex offenders are covered by the comprehensive
Adam Walsh Act. The sex offenders are not going to get Z visas.
The Senator from Texas can say, under our language, under his
interpretation, they will, but they would not. End of story. They would
not.
On the provisions regarding drunk-driving convictions and individuals
convicted of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and other
serious crimes, we increase the penalties for perjury, fraud, and
firearm offenses.
It is important that after all is said and done--and we gave the
illustration earlier about the questions of material support--the
terrorists are out.
One thing about managing a bill, for those of us who have been here,
we understand it; that there is always the possibility and the
likelihood people will misrepresent what is in the bill and then differ
with it. It is an old technique. I have even used it myself. But we
ought to understand when we see it that it is just a technique that is
being used.
[[Page S7114]]
So with all respect to my friend and colleague, and I have a good
deal of respect for him, the effect of the underlying Cornyn amendment
would effectively exclude from the Z visa program any immigrant who had
been or will be convicted of using false documents. That is the problem
today. Because of our broken immigration system, almost every hard-
working immigrant in the country has been forced at one time or another
to use false documents to get a job. These people have come here to
work. They have been lured by the employers offering work. They are the
very people this program is designed to bring out of the shadows. The
Cornyn amendment will ensure they cannot come forward. Indeed, if they
did come forward, they could be subject to prosecution and mandatory
deportation for using a fake Social Security card.
I believe we have addressed many of the concerns the Members have had
on dealing with some of these other issues and questions with the
Kennedy amendment, and I would hope the Members would vote in favor of
that and against the Cornyn amendment.
Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. May I inquire how much time remains on my side, Mr.
President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me assure my colleague, Senator
Kennedy, that only those who have actually been convicted of document
fraud would be excluded under my amendment.
According to recent statistics, roughly 10 million Americans fell
victim to identity theft last year, at an estimated cost of $50 billion
to U.S. taxpayers, and victims spent an average of $1,500 and 175 hours
to actually recover their good name and their good credit after
identity theft. This is not a trivial matter, and it is only people who
have actually been convicted, not those who have presented false
documents to work in the country who have not been convicted.
As far as the woman with four American children and married to an
American spouse, my amendment does not touch her rights under current
law. For example, we don't touch current law waivers for consent to
reapply for admission. We don't touch the Secretary's ability to grant
humanitarian parole. And we don't touch the waivers under current law
that cover an immigrant who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen.
I thought Mr. Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, was satisfied with
that answer earlier, but I point that out to my colleagues just so they
can be satisfied that there are exceptions for extraordinary
circumstances.
What this amendment does is it broadly says felons will not be given
the benefits of legalization and a path to American citizenship. They
have had their chance, they blew their chance, and they have shown
themselves unworthy of the trust and confidence of the American people
when it comes to living among us in compliance with our laws and
respecting the fact that, yes, we are a nation of immigrants, and
proudly so, but we are also a nation of laws. Those laws keep us safe,
they keep us secure, and they assure our prosperity, and the prosperity
of generations yet to come. We cannot, once again, turn a blind eye to
the laws that protect all of us, including those immigrants who have
come here to become part of our great country and to seek opportunity
for their future.
I hope my colleagues will support the Cornyn amendment, that they
will vote against the Kennedy amendment as a dilution and watered-down
figleaf of the Cornyn amendment.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with regard to Senator Durbin, he could
come back and speak to this issue, this was a mother of four U.S.
citizens, herself undocumented, who left the country to visit her sick
mother and was apprehended after she snuck back in. She had entered and
reentered the U.S. twice. She had false documents, and she has been
effectively deported.
The Senator says, well, she had rights to appeal, rights to do this
and to do that. This is the real impact. This is the real impact of the
Cornyn amendment. This is what the Cornyn amendment is all about. We
know the people who have come in here. Why do they come in here? They
come to work. Why do they come to work? Because the job is there. They
are devoted to their families, devoted to their work and faith, in many
instances devoted to this country--with 70,000 of them working in the
Armed Forces of the United States. But in order to be able to do that,
somewhere along the way they get the false papers. That is what the
facts are. The great majority have them.
Under the Cornyn amendment, it says those individuals are subject to
deportation. He thinks all 12\1/2\ million people are all going to
volunteer and come out and say, well, by the way, Senator Cornyn gave
us assurance that somebody down there in DHS can give me a waiver and
let me stay. Come on. Come on. We believe that? That is going to be
sufficient assurance to get these people to come out of the shadows so
that they are not going to continue to be exploited? I don't believe
that.
I have a lot of respect for my friend. I know what he is attempting
to do in order to deal with some of these other issues, and we have
attempted to address that. But the fact remains his amendment
undermines the basic core of this--recognizing that people here are
undocumented, and the ones who are undocumented, by and large, have
these false papers. That is a part of the reality.
The question is: Are we going to say to those individuals: Look, you
came here and are undocumented. You are going to pay a fine, and you
are going to have to demonstrate that you are going to work, and you
are going to show that you are going to be a good citizen. And in 8
years, after all the other people who have been waiting in line, after
all of that period, when you are able to pay the fine, demonstrate that
you have worked all that time, and have been a good citizen trying to
make a difference in terms of going into the country, that then you
will be able to at least start--start--on the potential road to
citizenship.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. All time has
expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, does the Senator desire the yeas and
nays?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to consider the yeas and nays on both amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request for the yeas
and nays on both amendments?
The chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Is there sufficient second on both amendments?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are
ordered on both amendments.
Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: There are going to
be two back-to-back votes. The first one will be on the Kennedy
amendment and the second one is on the Cornyn amendment; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kennedy amendment is the first vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. And the second vote is the Cornyn amendment. I thank the
Chair.
To continue, Mr. President, it is our hope that we will move toward
the DeMint amendment. We had good debate on that yesterday, and the
Bingaman amendment, and then have votes on those fairly soon after. I
thank all our Members for their cooperation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1333, as modified, offered by the Senator from Massachusetts.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:
[[Page S7115]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--32
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Lott
McConnell
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
NOT VOTING--1
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1333), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1184
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 1184 offered by the
Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
Who yields time? The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues for a ``yea''
vote on this amendment. If you voted for the Kennedy amendment, you
made an incremental improvement over the current law when it comes to
banning criminals from getting the benefit of our immigration system.
But in order to exclude felons, people who have shown their contempt
and defiance of American law, and unless it is your intent to reward
felons who have shown their contempt for the American legal system, to
reward them with the most precious gift this country can offer, which
is legal status, potentially legal permanent residency and a path to
citizenship, you should vote yes on this amendment. I would urge my
colleagues to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New York is
recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, make no mistake about it, with many good
intentions which were covered in the Kennedy amendment, this guts the
bill because it not only eliminates--it not only says that felons
should not become citizens, and we agree with that, it says that anyone
who has filed an illegal paper should not become a citizen. That is
every immigrant who would be on the path to citizenship. This body
voted against eliminating that provision overtly a few weeks ago. Now
they are trying to do the same thing covertly because if you vote for
this amendment, you will say no one will have a path to citizenship, no
one who works, because everyone who has worked had to file a Social
Security paper or something like that.
Anyone who wants to keep this bill going at the moment should vote
against the Cornyn amendment. The Kennedy amendment dealt with felons.
This is a stealth, Trojan horse amendment to kill the bill by saying no
one--no one--who has ever worked shall have the path to citizenship.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with all due respect, the Senator should
read the amendment. It does not affect people who have committed
identity theft unless they have actually been convicted of that. It
would have no effect on people who have entered without a visa or who
have come in on a legal visa and overstayed. This is no gutting of the
bill; it is only to protect the American people from felons.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1184, as modified,
offered by the Senator from Texas.
The yeas and nays were previously ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez) Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Landrieu
Lott
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Warner
NAYS--51
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Craig
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Coburn
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1884), as modified, was rejected.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until
2 p.m. today be for debate prior to a vote in relation to the following
amendments; that the time until then be equally divided and controlled
between the two leaders or their designees, with the time to run
concurrently; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments
covered in this agreement; that at 2 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote
in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that there be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote, with the vote
after the first being 10 minutes in duration, with no amendments in
order to the amendments prior to the vote: DeMint No. 1197, Bingaman
No. 1267, as modified.
I designate Senator Kennedy to have my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are making some good progress. The
Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, had a good discussion last
evening, as well as Senator Bingaman. We are grateful to them. We will
have a good discussion prior to 2 o'clock on these issues.
We are hopeful, then, we will be moving along. Senator Cornyn had an
amendment on confidentiality. We have Senator Dodd. There are a number
of those where we are trying to go back one side to the other. We hope
those Senators who have amendments who are ready, particularly those
who would like to enter into a time agreement, will let us know as
quickly as possible. We will be in touch with others during this
luncheon period and continue to move along. But we are thankful for all
the help and cooperation we have received.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, staff has been working hard to set up votes
on the amendments that have been called up. We ran into a little
problem; that is, we had too many Democratic amendments. But we think
at this stage they are now working on setting up side by side, in some
instances, Republican amendments. We need to clear
[[Page S7116]]
off the amendments that have been called up.
Now, as I have just indicated, if we have offsets for the Democratic
amendments, we will go ahead and allow those to be called up or have
side-by-sides. Once we get this done, I have been assured by both
Senator Kennedy and Senator Kyl and others that we can have a list of
amendments people need a vote on--not they want a vote on but need a
vote on. We hope both cloakrooms have hotlined this and Senators are
working on a personal basis with individual Senators.
Hopefully, we can get, by the 2 o'clock time, permission to do away
with--I should not say ``do away with''--to dispose of the amendments
that have been called up. Then, hopefully, we can shortly thereafter
find out what amendments people wish to have votes on. If we can do
that, it would really move this ball down the court a long ways.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
As I understand, 1 o'clock today is the deadline for the filing of
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. A number of Senators have spoken to me about having
their amendments filed. Many of them I have given the insurances that
we would. The Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, had asked that 2 days
ago, and we are working with the Finance Committee. I see her in the
Chamber. I think Senator Thune was here last evening. I objected to
those individuals proceeding. It would appear to me, out of fairness we
ought to make sure they are not excluded. Is our policy to make sure
they are at least within--if they have indicated to the floor managers,
they want to be in, we have them meet the deadline?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, all first-degree amendments would have to be
filed by 1 o'clock. As we have indicated, we are going to try to be
fair to everybody. If there are amendments that have been up at the
desk, we will certainly do our best to get to those. I think what we
need to do is find out, as I have indicated, what needs to be voted on.
Some Senators on our side, for example, have been contacted this
morning, and they have decided not to offer amendments. The same will
happen over there. If people have been waiting around and feel
aggrieved they have not been allowed to offer their amendments, of
course, we will consider that. But I do not think we need to do
anything right now as far as a unanimous consent request in that
regard.
We will do everything we can--everybody is working in good faith--to
have people feel they have the opportunity to offer their amendments. I
know the Senator from Texas--she is gone--she just walked in. I do not
know what her amendment is about. I think it is Social Security. I am
not too certain. She has been around here a lot. She is entitled, if
for no other reason than having the endurance to hang around as long as
she has, to have her amendment offered. We will work with everybody,
both Democrats and Republicans, to see if we can work something out to
have all these amendments offered and a time set to vote on them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, all they have to do is
be filed by this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. So for those who are back in their offices, they do not
have to be called up. They just have to be filed. So they have until 1
o'clock for the filing of amendments. We urge those who want to have
amendments filed to make sure they understand that. They do not have to
call them up. They are protected in that way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed
to speak up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
me, the Senator from Maine be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me add another part to that
unanimous consent request: that the Senator from Florida be allowed to
speak for up to 10 minutes, following the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia.
(The remarks of Mr. Chambliss are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, under the rules, the
filing time was set for 1 o'clock, and the leader has indicated for
filing any amendments that we extend that. I ask unanimous consent that
the filing time be extended until 2 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could just say this--I would say this
mostly to the staffs: We do not need a big rush over here as to filing
amendments. It does not give anybody any benefit anyway. Just show some
discretion on who has to file amendments, and then we will work our way
through those and find out how we are going to dispose of them. So I
think this is the right thing to do. There is no magic to the next 5
minutes. So we will wait for the next 65 minutes. If people have
trouble making that deadline, let us know.
I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might just add a word, we thank the
majority leader and the Senator from Massachusetts for extending the
time. That should ease substantial pressure on this side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine.
(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1554
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Martinez are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum, and I
ask that the time be equally charged.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Thune are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally
between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1183, As Further Modified
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Clinton
amendment No. 1183 be further modified with the changes that are at the
desk.
[[Page S7117]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1183), as further modified, is as follows:
On page 260, line 13, strike ``567,000'' and insert
``480,000''.
On page 260, line 19, strike ``127,000'' and insert
``40,000''.
On page 269, line 18, insert ``or the child or spouse of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence'' after
``United States''.
On page 269, line 21, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 269, line 22, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 269, line 23, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 269, line 23, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 269, line 24, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 269, line 25, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 269, line 26, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 269, line 32, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 269, line 41, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 269, line 42, insert ``or lawful permanent resident
status'' after ``citizenship''.
On page 270, strike lines 18 through 29, and insert:
(2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting the
following:
On page 270, line 31, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
On page 271, line 17, strike ``(4)'' the first place it
appears and insert ``(3)''.
On page 273, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
(5) Section 201(f) (8 U.S.C. 1151(f)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3),'' and inserting
``paragraph (2),''; and
(ii) by striking ``(b)(2)(A)(i)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(D) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking
``(b)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)''.
(6) Section 202 (8 U.S.C. 1152) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (4); and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4).
(7) Section 203(h) (8 U.S.C. 1153(h)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d)'' and inserting ``subsection
(d)'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``becomes available
for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date
on which an immigrant visa number became available for the
alien's parent)'', and inserting ``became available for the
alien's parent,''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``applicable'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``The petition'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``The petition
described in this paragraph is a petition filed under section
204 for classification of the alien parent under subsection
(a) or (b).''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``subsections (a)(2)(A)
and (d)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(8) Section 204 (8 U.S.C. 1154) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) in clause (iii)--
(aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``citizen'' each place that term appears; and
(bb) in subclause (II)(aa)(CC)(bbb), by inserting ``or
legal permanent resident'' after ``citizenship'';
(II) in clause (iv)--
(aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``citizen'' each place that term appears; and
(bb) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``citizenship'';
(III) in clause (v)(I), by inserting ``or legal permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''; and
(IV) in clause (vi)--
(aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident status''
after ``renunciation of citizenship''; and
(bb) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``abuser's citizenship'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B);
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (J) as
subparagraphs (B) through (I), respectively;
(iv) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated, by striking
``subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii)'' and
inserting ``clause (iii) or (iv) of subparagraph (A)''; and
(v) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated--
(I) by striking ``or clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph
(B)''; and
(II) by striking ``under subparagraphs (C) and (D)'' and
inserting ``under subparagraphs (B) and (C)'';
(B) by striking subsection (a)(2);
(C) in subsection (h), by striking ``or a petition filed
under subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii)''; and
(D) in subsection (j), by striking ``subsection (a)(1)(D)''
and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(C)''.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes
of the remaining time be reserved for Senator DeMint.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1267
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to first speak on behalf of an
amendment I offered with Senator Obama. It is one of the two amendments
that will be voted on in the sequence at 2 o'clock. The amendment is
aimed at addressing what I believe is a very shortsighted provision in
this draft immigration bill.
My amendment applies only to this new guest worker program we are
creating under the bill, the so-called Y-1 program. It doesn't impact
the Y-2 program, which is the seasonal and nonagricultural program that
is based on the existing H-2B program, or the H-2A program, which is
the agricultural temporary worker program.
Under this immigration bill as it now stands, Y-1 workers--guest
workers, which is how we refer to them--would be able to work in the
United States for three 2-year work periods. But before they could
renew their visas for the second and the third of those 2-year work
periods, they would have to leave the country for at least a year. This
is the so-called 2-1-2-1-2 provision. Work for 2 years, leave for 1
year, work for 2 years, leave for 1 year, work for 2 years, and then
leave for good. The total number of work years in the United States
would be limited to 6 years, but the work pattern would be interrupted
twice each time by a 1-year absence requirement.
The amendment I have offered, and that we will be voting on in a few
minutes, simply removes the requirement these guest workers leave the
country before they renew their visas. It would leave in place the term
of the visa, which is 2 years, and it would not alter the 6-year total
work limit that is provided for in the bill. In addition, it would
modify the requirement that Y-1 workers meet all of the relevant
requirements under the program each time they apply to renew their
visas.
Over the last 2 days, I have come to the floor to discuss this
provision a couple of times. I strongly believe it does not make any
sense from a policy standpoint and, ultimately, we are going to be
judged by how much sense this legislation makes. As I have pointed out,
this provision is bad for employers; it harms American workers; it will
be difficult and costly to implement; and it will likely encourage
these workers, whom we are bringing here as so-called guest workers, to
overstay their visas.
For these reasons, my amendment has the broad support of labor
groups, such as the Service Employees International Union; business
organizations, such as the National Association of Home Builders and
the Associated Builders and Contractors; and immigration and religious
groups, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American
Association of Immigration Lawyers, and the National Immigration Forum.
The coalition of organizations supporting this amendment is indicative
of how harmful the 1-year absence requirement would be from a variety
of different perspectives.
I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the following
material be printed in the Record: the statement that was issued by the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a letter by the Associated
Builders and Contractors Organization, a letter by the National
Association of Home Builders, and a statement by the SEIU, the Service
Employees International Union.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, with regard to the employer, it would be
extremely costly to require businesses to retrain and rehire new
workers every 2 years. No employer I am aware of would think it
satisfactory for an employee to take a 1-year so-called break every
couple of years. Each of us in the Senate employs people in our
offices, here in the Capitol and our home States. This would be an
unacceptable condition for us, and I am sure it would be for any
employer. Businesses would have to hire other workers to take over for
the leaving guest worker, would have to invest time and money in
retraining additional staff. This would be extremely burdensome,
particularly on small businesses.
From an economic standpoint, I believe it generally does not make
sense
[[Page S7118]]
to enact laws that cause instability in the workforce and create
requirements that unnecessarily impose significant costs on our small
businesses. I am not an economist, but this does not seem to be a
sensible way for us to do business.
Let me take a moment to read a portion of a letter I received from
the National Association of Homebuilders on this issue. The letter
says:
This system essentially makes the entire program in title
IV unworkable for the construction industry. In the
residential construction industry, employers spend much time
and resources training employees. To arbitrarily lose valued
employees at the end of 2 years, as they are forced to return
home for a full year, creates unnecessary amounts of
instability in our workplaces, and wastes scarce employer
resources.
The construction industry is not the only sector of the economy that
would be adversely impacted by this provision. The new guest worker
program is not limited in the respect that existing temporary worker
programs are in terms of the work being seasonal or within certain
industries, such as in agriculture. These are, in fact, permanent jobs
we are talking about, and they are scattered throughout our economy and
will be affected if we leave this provision unchanged.
The 1-year absence requirement is also harmful to American workers.
Kicking workers out of the country every 2 years ensures that there
will always be guest workers who will be coming in to be paid at the
low end of the pay scale, and this will result in a depression of wages
for all workers, not just those guest workers but for the American
workers who are competing for those jobs as well.
According to a letter of support I have asked to be printed in the
Record that I received from the Service Employees International Union,
they say the following:
Employers will be less likely to invest in worker training
or other benefits and wages to retain workers. . . . The 2-1-
2-1-2 is a recipe for wage depression, job turnover and
increased illegal workers.
The structure of the new guest worker program will also result in a
substantial number of these workers overstaying their visas so they
don't have to leave the country for an extended period of time. The
Government has not done a great job in the past of ensuring that
individuals leave the country at the expiration of their visas, and I
have no reason to believe--I don't think any of us have any reason to
believe--that the Department of Homeland Security will be able to do a
substantially better job in the near future.
In December of last year, after the Government Accountability Office
issued a report regarding the US-VISIT Program, which is a mechanism by
which Government is supposed to be able to track the entry and the exit
of foreign visitors, the Department of Homeland Security scrapped its
plans to implement the exit portion of that program for U.S. land ports
of entry.
In essence, the GAO report found it could take up to 10 years to
develop the technology required to fully implement the program and that
the cost of doing so could be in the tens of billions of dollars. There
is nothing in the immigration bill that indicates that this capability
is within our reach.
In section 130 of the bill, the Federal Government is required to
come up with a schedule for deploying the exit component of the US-
VISIT system. However, we have already been told by the GAO that this
will not be a reality for a very long period of time.
In crafting this immigration bill, there has been a lot of attention
given to trying to bring together individuals with a wide variety of
political views. In my opinion, we have not focused enough on the
practical aspects of how this bill is going to be implemented.
Compromises need to be made as part of any legislative package, but we
cannot lose sight of the need to craft legislation that makes sense
from a policy standpoint and that actually can be implemented and can
work.
It is my belief the new guest worker program is currently structured
in a manner that has more to do with the politics of getting a
compromise among those who drafted the legislation than it does with
sound policy. As I have discussed, the requirement that these guest
workers leave every 2 years before renewing their visas is bad for
employers, it is harmful to American workers, it is difficult to
enforce, and it will likely result in a larger population of
undocumented workers in this country in the future.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and
to help make this bill more workable and better public policy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2007.
U.S. Catholic Bishops Urge Senate To Support Amendments Protecting
Asylum Seekers and Guest Workers in the Comprehensive Immigration Bill
The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops urges Senators to
vote for the following amendments to S. 1348, the
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007:
The Lieberman Safe and Secure Detention Amendment.
Lieberman amendment #1191 would maintain U.S. obligations to
international human rights by providing safe and secure
detention for victims of torture and persecution seeking
asylum protection in this country. While awaiting judgment on
their cases, persons claiming persecution or fear of
persecution in their home countries often are subjected to
prison-like conditions in U.S. detention facilities without
proper health, nutritional, physical or spiritual care. This
amendment makes major improvements to the U.S. detention
system by reinforcing the country's rich heritage and
tradition of assisting especially vulnerable persons.
The Bingaman Guest-Worker Workability Amendment. Bingaman
amendment #1267 would eliminate the requirement for the
``years out'' for guest workers who are renewing their
temporary Y-visas. By requiring workers to leave the country
after two years, only to return one year later, the
underlying legislation would create a highly-bureaucratic and
unstable system for guest workers to come in to the country.
It is likely that many guest workers would overstay their
visas, knowing that they are to return in just a year, and
many government resources would likely be devoted to seeking
out and punishing individuals who are providing valuable and
much-needed work. The Bingaman amendment provides a
significant step toward creating a worker program that is
more humane, workable, and desirous for both guest workers
and employers alike.
____
Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.,
June 6, 2007.
The U.S. Senate,
Washington DC.
Dear Members of the United States Senate: On behalf of
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) and its more than
24,000 general contractors, subcontractors, material
suppliers and construction related firms across the United
States, I urge you to vote YES on an amendment (#1267) being
offered by Senator Bingaman and Senator Obama to S. 1348, the
``Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Reform Act of 2007,'' which would remove the requirement that
Y-1 temporary workers leave the country before renewing their
visas.
Currently, the immigration bill allows Y-1 guest workers to
work in the U.S. for 2-year periods (up to 6 years). However,
it requires the workers to leave the U.S. for at least 1 year
before renewing their visas. Requiring these workers to leave
the country for a lengthy period of time between each work
period is harmful for employers; extremely difficult and
costly to enforce; harms American workers; and increases the
likelihood that individuals will overstay their visas.
Moreover, the construction industry, more so than many other
industries, relies on highly trained workers to fill their
labor force. Having a temporary worker on the job for only a
two year time frame makes the current Y-1 visa program
outlined in S. 1348 virtually useless for our industry. This
is due to the fact that in most cases it takes two to four
years to properly train workers in the construction industry.
The Bingaman/Obama amendment (#1267) would allow Y-1
temporary workers to stay in the United States for the entire
duration of their work visa. This would give ample time for
the employee to become fully trained in the construction
industry and it would make the new Y-1 temporary visa
beneficial to our ever expanding industry. It is imperative
that America's construction industry be allowed the time
needed to properly train their employees so that accidents on
jobsites can be avoided at all costs.
ABC supports the Bingaman/Obama amendment (#1267) that
would remove the mandatory requirement that Y-1 temporary
workers leave the country before renewing their visa and ask
you to vote ``YES'' on this important amendment.
Respectfully Submitted,
William B. Spencer,
Vice President, Government Affairs.
____
National Association of
Home Builders,
June 5, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: On
behalf of the 235,000 member firms of the National
Association of Home Builders (NAHB), we urge
[[Page S7119]]
you (NAHB), we urge you to vote in support of the amendment
being offered by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Barack
Obama (D-IL), AMDT 1267, that would eliminate the mandatory
one year cooling off periods in the proposed 2-1-2-1-2 future
flow (``temporary worker'') program contained in Title IV of
S. 1348, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Because of the importance of
this issue to our members, and the overall workability of
comprehensive immigration reform, NAHB will be key voting in
support of this amendment.
The future flow program in Title IV of S. 1348 will create
a legal process by which immigrants can enter the United
States in future years to work in industries that have
established labor shortages. Under the current proposed
legislation, the bill would require a worker to return to
their home country for a full year every two years. This
system essentially makes the entire program in Title IV
unworkable for the construction industry. In the residential
construction industry, employers spend much time and
resources training employees. To arbitrarily lose valued
employees at the end of two years, as they are forced to
return home for a full year, creates unnecessary amounts of
instability in our workplaces, and wastes scarce employer
resources.
The Bingaman/Obama amendment will eliminate the mandatory
one-year ``cooling off'' periods in the current bill, and
replace it with a two-year visa, that can be renewed two
additional times for a total of six years--equal to the six
years that are ultimately allowed under the program in S.
1348 now. Removing the cooling off periods will create a much
more usable program for employers, and we urge you to support
this effort to improve the bill.
NAHB believes that a workable future flow immigrant program
is essential to comprehensive immigration reform because
without it, it is likely to lead to a situation that will
encourage more illegal immigration in the future.
Again, NAHB will be key voting in support of the vote on
the Bingaman/Obama amendment, AMDT 1267.
Sincerely,
Joseph M. Stanton,
Chief Lobbyist.
____
SEIU strongly support the removal of the requirement that
Y-1 temporary workers leave the U.S. for at least 1 year
before renewing their visas. While we are willing to accept a
temporary worker program in exchange for legalization of the
12 million undocumented living among us, we are very
disappointed with the guest worker program contained in the
``Grand Bargain''. This is why the Bingaman/Obama amendment
is critical and would improve workers ability to stay
employed during the entire period of their Y visa. When
temporary workers are working in year round jobs it is more
difficult for all workers to raise their wages and improve
their working conditions. The Y-1 visa program as it is
currently drafted will ensure wage depression for all
workers, because it will ensure workers leave their jobs
every two years. Employers will be less likely to invest in
worker training or offer benefits and wages to retain
workers. Removing the 1 year return requirement will help all
workers raise the wages, gain job experience and receive
valuable training to improve the job skills. The 2-1-2-1-1 is
a recipe for wage depression, job turnover and increased
illegal workers, as history has demonstrated--guest workers
will overstay their visas, when they have no legal channel to
remain in the country.
We thank Senator Bingaman and Senator Obama for their
continued leadership on comprehensive immigration reform.
SEIU urges all Senators to vote for this improving amendment.
Alison Reardon,
Director of Legislation, Service Employees International
Union (SEIU).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico and I have
worked on a great many matters since he was elected in 1982. If I may
have the attention of the Senator from New Mexico, I am about to
compliment him. I don't like to compliment him behind his back. The
Senator from New Mexico and I have worked on a great many matters since
he was elected to the Senate in 1982. I came at about the same time
after the 1980 election. I am especially interested in his amendment
and the criticism of the bill because it is the politics of compromise
and not based on sound public policy.
The Senator from New Mexico and I are now working on a bill called
the Bingaman-Specter bill on global warming. I am pleased to hear there
has been no compromise in that bill that is based upon sound public
policy. But in a very serious way, I suggest that is what we do. This
place would be run a lot better if I ran it unilaterally. The Senator
from New Jersey, who is presiding, smiles at that. I think more in
humor than in disagreement. But we have 100 Members of this body with
200 different ideas. Each of us has two ideas on the same subject at a
minimum. I know the Senator from New Mexico has a full plate on many
items. He chairs the Energy Committee. He has been working on the
global warming issue. He is not on Judiciary, and he doesn't have a
special concern--well, for whatever reason, he did not elect to become
part of the group of Senators who worked on the bill, for good and
sufficient reason. I am not suggesting he should have. He attended the
sessions, as did the Senator from New Jersey who is presiding, and saw
what we were doing. We were so compromised that people on opposite ends
of the political spectrum left us. They wouldn't stay with us because
we couldn't satisfy everybody, and understandably so. We simply could
not satisfy everybody.
The question is whether we would have satisfied anybody. We will know
when we move along and try to get this bill to final passage. But when
you take what happened to us last year--we passed a bill in the Senate,
they passed one in the House, and we couldn't even conference it,
wouldn't even conference it. There are people who just want a tight
border and to deport 12 million undocumented immigrants. That is what
they want to do.
As we work through the compromises, I would consider it a compliment
to be a party to the politics of compromise, and I would accept the
term ``politician'' with grace and appreciation. I remember hearing
Adlai Stevenson speak in the early fifties. Perhaps it was when he
first ran for President in 1952. He said: Do you know the definition of
a statesman? The definition of a statesman, Mr. President, is a dead
politician. That is why I much prefer being a politician, at least for
the moment. I much prefer being a politician.
On this specific amendment, we hassled about this a long time. We had
6 years in mind. Should it be 3 and 3 or should it be 2 and back and 2
and back for a year and back? We finally accepted this compromise to
try to make the workers temporary, that they would not get roots here
and not return to their home country; that when we are working within
the structure of the immigration laws, we have to accommodate the 12
million because we cannot deport them. We would like to identify those
who are criminals, who are not contributing, who do not have roots and
deport them, if we can identify them in numbers that we can handle.
Then there was the issue of trying hard to avoid the characterization
of amnesty. Amnesty is a lot like Shakespeare's famous definition of a
rose:
That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as
sweet.
If we could find more ways to make these 12 million people earn
citizenship, we would. We have the fine. Maybe it is too high, maybe it
is too low. We have back taxes. Maybe we can find that out and maybe we
cannot. The requirement of English I think everybody agrees with.
Having roots in this country, yes. Being a contributor to this country,
yes. If we could shake the title of amnesty, we would like to do it, if
somebody could tell us how to do it.
There are many people who are so opposed to what we are trying to do,
they will call anything amnesty. I am not going to say it is not
amnesty--although I believe it is not amnesty because they are earning
their way--because if you get involved in name calling, it all
disintegrates. People are angry at President Bush for saying it is not
amnesty when they are sure it is amnesty.
I compliment the President for the leadership he has shown on this
issue. He sent us Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez and Secretary of
Homeland Security Chertoff. For hours, days, weeks, months they worked
on it. There was a commitment by the administration.
The President has spoken out on this issue loudly, plainly, and
clearly. He has taken a lot of brickbats for it, but he is working hard
on it. On the Senate floor a few weeks ago, I made a comment that it
was either amnesty or anarchy. Anarchy is what we have here; that is,
if it is amnesty--and, again, I say I think it is not, but I am not
going to get into a name-calling contest with people who want to call
names.
Lou Dobbs of CNN has been one of the most vocal critics of the plan.
He
[[Page S7120]]
has a right to do that, and I have been on his program and discussed it
with him, debated it with him. But I was interested to see him comment
about my characterization of anarchy. That struck a chord. Lou Dobbs
doesn't like anarchy--nobody likes anarchy--but in a sense that is the
choice we have.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment of the Senator
from New Mexico, although I have great respect, and I know this is very
thoughtful, very well presented, all except for his criticism of the
politics of compromise.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I first thank my colleague and
congratulate him for his leadership on this bill. I know he has worked
long and hard to bring this bill to the floor and is making the best
out of a very awkward, difficult situation in trying to get all the
interested parties under the same tent.
I am reminded of when I was attorney general of my State of New
Mexico. One of the duties of the attorney general in New Mexico is to
issue what are called attorneys general opinions about different legal
points that come up. Sometimes those opinions are followed by various
State agencies and then they are challenged in court. I remember in one
of the cases where it was challenged in our State supreme court, a
friend of mine on the State supreme court, who was a very wise man,
wrote an opinion essentially saying that the opinion I had issued, the
attorney general opinion, was wrong. He said attorneys general opinions
are entitled to great weight, except when they are wrong.
That is sort of the way I feel about the bill that has been brought
to the floor. I have great respect for those who have put it together,
and it is entitled to great weight and deference, except where it
clearly is wrong. That is what we are trying to do with this amendment,
is to correct an area of the bill that clearly is wrong. I hope my
colleagues will see it the same way and support my amendment. But I
compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this
important issue.
Amendment No. 1177
I wish to speak very briefly about another amendment, unless the
Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to say something, and then I would
defer to him. I gather he does not need to at this point.
Let me speak briefly about another amendment I have filed. It is
amendment No. 1177. It provides forestry workers with Y visas some of
the same rights to ensure that the terms of their guest worker
contracts are honored the same way other guest workers in the
agricultural sector can have their contracts honored.
This is an amendment that is eminently reasonable. It was adopted by
unanimous consent during the debate as part of the immigration bill we
passed out of the Senate in the last Congress. I hope we can get
agreement from the managers of the legislation to include it this year
as well. So I wished to briefly allude to that amendment and urge every
consideration of it.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1197
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I expect that Senator DeMint will come to
the floor to address his amendment, but in the next 5 minutes that we
have before he does so, I would say his amendment is basically saying
there will be no adjustment in status unless all these individuals are
going to be able to buy into the high-deductible HSAs, health savings
accounts, and that because of the fact that immigrants are a burden on
the health care system, that they should be required to do this
additional kind of work to meet their responsibilities under this
legislation.
There are a couple factors I wish to mention. First of all, if you
take the fact that you have 12 million of these individuals, the 12
million who are the undocumentable, they are going to, as part of their
fine, pay $500 per individual. That comes to some $6 billion--$6
billion--that can go for support for various health care offsets into
local communities. That is not an insignificant amount of resources. We
anticipated this possibility, No. 1.
No. 2, we ought to make an examination of what happens to these
undocumented individuals. What is the utilization by the undocumented?
We know they are basically healthier, they are younger, and the various
information and statistics we see says there is not an overutilization
of the health services.
I have statistics for undocumented immigrants in one of the border
States, this is in Texas, and I will read this and include the
appropriate part in the Record. The Comptroller's office estimates the
absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas
would have been a loss to their gross State product of $17 billion.
Also, the Comptroller's office estimates State revenues collected from
undocumented immigrants exceed what the State spends on services, with
the difference being $424 million. That is today, one State--Texas--in
the utilization of services.
So we find this population where there has not been an
overutilization of services, and we have provisions in the current
legislation to deal with this problem and deal with it generously. But
the Senator from South Carolina wants to insist on a high-deductible
program.
Let us look at the average high-deductible program. The average
annual deductible for a high-deductible plan required under the DeMint
amendment is $1,900 for an individual and $4,000 for a family. The
average annual premium for the plan: $2,700 for an individual and
$7,900 for a family. The total average cost for an individual would be
$4,600 and $11,000 for a family. That is for the average individual and
family. This includes the fees and also the deductibility.
We have the various studies that have been done, the reports, and
this information is from the Los Angeles Times. It points out that
plans with high deductibles of $1,000 or higher monthly premiums that
can be less than $100, as Senator DeMint provides, are a good fit for
healthy people with some financial resources. The median annual income
of those using the high-deductible plans is $75,000. This is a fit for
$75,000. Although the lower premiums make plans attractive, cash-
strapped families run the risk of being unable to afford the
deductibles.
Those are the facts. So the effect of the DeMint amendment is another
way of denying the 12 million undocumented from being able to
participate in the other provisions of the legislation, which we have
very carefully crafted. They have to pay a high fine, they have to pay
the State a set-aside, they are going to have to pay the fees as they
move along. These are not insignificant. We are talking about thousands
and thousands of dollars which have been worked out carefully and
considered.
This kind of additional burden will say to men and women whose
average income may be $10,000 or $11,000 that they are not going to be
able to do it. Take those individual Americans who are making $10,000
and $11,000 and look at how many of them are able to afford health
insurance. Virtually none. We know about that in Massachusetts because
Massachusetts has passed a very effective program to bring those
individuals in and to help and assist those individuals.
So the idea that we are going to put this in as a requirement is
another way of saying to those individuals, look, we might like other
provisions of the legislation, but this is a way of effectively barring
you from being able to participate in this program. That undermines the
object of a very important aspect of this whole endeavor. Therefore, I
hope the amendment will be defeated.
As I understand from the Chair, the last several minutes are supposed
to be for the Senator from South Carolina; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I don't see him in the Chamber. I think we ought to
reserve that time for the Senator. As I understand, under the previous
agreement,
[[Page S7121]]
we have agreed to vote at 2 p.m.; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to speak on my amendment that
is up for a vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. At the present time, all time has
expired.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes to speak on
my amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on
this amendment. I think all of us would agree that we would like to
design an immigration program that benefited America, that actually
brightened the future for Americans, for our children, and that we do
not want an immigration system that is going to invite people from all
over the world who will come here and be a burden to the American
taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the way this bill is written, the Z visas we offer all
the illegal immigrants in this country do not require that these
illegals have health insurance before they are given these legal
passes. That means they will continue to be a heavy burden on the
American health care system.
Senator Kennedy has said the $500 one-time fee they have to pay is
enough to cover these costs. I know every American wishes they could
pay $500 and have free health insurance for life but, unfortunately, it
is more expensive than that. Also, Senator Kennedy has said these types
of minimum policies cost well over $2,000 a year, which is, frankly,
not true. Many of us have policies that cost less than $1,000 a year
for a high-deductible policy, which is the minimum level we ask for.
The least we can ask of these immigrants we are granting permanent
legal status in this country is not to be a burden on Americans for
their health care. To have a minimum level of health insurance is the
least we can ask. This amendment would require Z visa holders to have
that minimum level, and I ask all of my colleagues to support it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
DeMint amendment No. 1197.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There
is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Lott
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--55
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1197) was rejected.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has an
important amendment. He was over here yesterday afternoon and evening
and spoke well about it. He came over here during the lunch hour. It is
a very important amendment. He deserves to be heard.
Amendment No. 1267
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the Bingaman
amendment No. 1267, as modified.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Landrieu be added as a cosponsor to amendment 1267.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment tries to eliminate the 2-
1-2-1-2 provisions in this bill. The underlying bill says if a guest
worker comes here, they can work for 2 years, they are kicked out for a
year, they can come back, work for two more, they are kicked out for a
year, they can come back work for two more, then they are kicked out
for good.
What my amendment does is to say: Let's bring them here for 2 years,
allow them to renew their visa twice, so that they would be here a
maximum of 6 years. This makes a lot more sense for employers, for
American workers who are competing for these jobs, for the guest
workers themselves.
This has the support of the business community, the unions, the
Catholic bishops. Everybody interested in this bill supports this. This
is commonsense legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon the Senator from
New Mexico criticized the bill as being the ``politics of compromise,''
as opposed to sound public policy. I told him, had he participated in
the negotiations, he would have seen quintessential politics of
compromise. You could not begin to make any progress at all on this
legislation unless it was the politics of compromise. I suggest that is
an art form frequently practiced in this body. I reminded the Senator
from New Mexico of our cosponsorship of global warming. I am glad to
hear there is nothing in the bill which he is the principal sponsor of
that is a factor of the politics of compromise. I am glad our bill is
pure.
I have not seen the bill, in the short time I have been in the
Senate, that doesn't have compromise in it. If it did not have any
compromise, it would not have gotten here. If it did get here, it would
not be passed.
The principle of this bill is to make it temporary so people do not
establish roots. If you dealt with Senator Kyl on this matter, you
would understand how important he is to this bill and how important
this provision is to his continued support.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in favor
of the Bingaman-Obama Y-1 guest worker amendment.
The Bingaman-Obama amendment removes the requirement that Y-1 visa
holders under the new guest worker program leave the United States for
at least 1 year before renewing their visas. Designing a worker program
where people are supposed to come to the U.S. for 2 years, leave for a
year, return for 2 years, leave for a year, and then return for 2 years
is a recipe for creating a new undocumented population.
Our amendment does not modify the overall number of permissible work
years, which would still be limited to a total of 6 years, and it
doesn't change the term of the visa, which would still be 2 years. In
order to renew their visa, applicants would still have to demonstrate
that they are eligible to meet the requirements of the program. The
amendment maintains the general structure of the program, but revises
it in a manner that makes the program more workable.
We need to pass this amendment because the process in the underlying
bill
[[Page S7122]]
is costly and burdensome on employers, especially small businesses.
Requiring employers to rehire and retrain workers every 2 years imposes
unnecessary costs and creates instability in the workforce.
The underlying language is also harmful to American workers. The 1-
year absence requirement would ensure that guest workers are always at
the lowest end of the pay scale, which would depress overall wages. And
the system as now designed provides an additional incentive for guest
workers to overstay the term of their visas. Rather than returning to
their home countries after their 2-year visas expire, many workers will
just remain in the United States and become undocumented immigrants.
In short, the temporary worker design in the bill is unworkable and
difficult to enforce. It is unlikely that the government will be able
to sufficiently track the entry and exit of these workers to ensure
that they comply with the 1-year absence requirement. By removing the
1-year requirement to leave the country between renewals we would at
least be making the program workable.
Our amendment has the support of a variety of labor, business,
immigration, and religious groups. Specifically, the Service Employees
Union International, SEIU, the National Association of Homebuilders,
NAHB, the Associated Builders and Contractors, ABC, the U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops, USCCB, the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, AILA, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the National
Immigration Forum, NIF, have voiced their strong support of this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 1267.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coburn
Conrad
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Shelby
Tester
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--57
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Kyl
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sessions
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
NOT VOTING--1
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1267), as modified, was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until
6:45 p.m. today be for debate prior to a vote in relation to the
following amendments; and that the time until then be equally divided
and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the
time to run concurrently; that no amendments be in order to any of the
amendments covered in this agreement prior to the vote; that at 6:45
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order
listed; and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to
each vote, with the votes after the first being 10 minutes in duration;
that if an amendment on this list is not pending, it is to be called up
now. These amendments are Cornyn, No. 1250; Reid, No. 1331; Sessions,
No. 1234; Menendez, No. 1194; Kyl, No. 1460; Lieberman, No. 1191; and
that a half hour of the minority's time on these amendments be
allocated to Senator Sessions, and another half hour allocated to
Senator Cornyn.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the unanimous
consent request?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is this an
exclusive list?
Mr. REID. No.
Mr. STEVENS. No objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall
not object, I wish to inquire of the majority leader: I have an
amendment that is a change in the amendment by which we proposed to
sunset the guest worker provision. That amendment failed by one vote. I
have made a modification to that amendment and would intend to reoffer
the amendment and have another debate on it and a vote on that
amendment. I wonder if I could inquire of the Senator----
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, at this time tentatively
there are three Democratic amendments pending. There are no Republican
amendments to match those. When we finish this tranche of votes, we are
going to try to complete tonight at least these six more. I understand
the Senator has or will refile his amendment, and we will be happy to
take that into consideration as we try to move this bill along.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have no objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could the
leader tell us when amendments can be called up which were not on the
list he just read, that have not been allowed to be called up today?
Mr. REID. We are working on that now. We are making progress. There
are going to be three called up as soon as we get this vote started.
That will be the next agreement we will enter into, and there will be
three Republican amendments. So if you have something you care about,
work with your colleagues over there to see if that can be one of the
next three.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection, and
it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 1331 and 1460 To Amendment No. 1150
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report two
amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 1331 to amendment No. 1150.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify the application of the earned income tax credit)
At the end of subtitle F of title VII, add the following:
SEC. ___. EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.
Nothing is this Act, or the amendments made by this Act,
may be construed to modify any provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 which prohibits illegal aliens from
qualifying for the earned income tax credit under section 32
of such Code.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Kyl, for
himself and Mr. Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 1460
to amendment No. 1150.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To modify the allocation of visas with respect to the backlog
of family-based visa petitions)
Beginning on page 270, strike lines 31 and 32, and insert
the following:
``(3) Family-based visa petitions filed before january 1,
2007, for which visas will be available before january 1,
2027.--
``(A) In general.--The allocation of immigrant visas
described in paragraph (4) shall apply to an alien for whom--
``(i) a family-based visa petition was filed on or before
January 1, 2007; and
``(ii) as of January 1, 2007, the Secretary of Homeland
Security calculates under subparagraph (B) that a visa can
reasonably be
[[Page S7123]]
expected to become available before January 1, 2027.
``(B) Reasonable expectation of availablity of visas.--In
calculating the date on which a family-based visa can
reasonably be expected to become available for an alien
described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall take into account--
``(i) the number of visas allocated annually for the family
preference class under which the alien's petition was filed;
``(ii) the effect of any per country ceilings applicable to
the alien's petition;
``(iii) the number of petitions filed before the alien's
petition was filed that were filed under the same family
preference class; and
``(iv) the rate at which visas made available in the family
preference class under which the alien's petition was filed
were unclaimed in previous years.
``(4) Allocation of family-based immigrant visas.--''.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business and the time to be charged to the majority side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Amendment No. 1313
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to discuss amendment No. 1313, an
amendment I will offer to the immigration reform bill, which will
address what I believe are two important, crucial flaws in this
legislation. The first flaw relates to what many are calling amnesty,
wherein the bill legalizes almost everyone who entered this country by
the beginning of this year. The second flaw relates to an unworkable
set of procedures that is applicable to those who are properly being
offered legal status. It is important to the health and practicality of
our system, in my view, that these two flaws be addressed.
My amendment would achieve three critically important goals. It
creates a fair and workable path to legalization for those who have
truly put roots down in America; it protects the legitimate interests
of all working Americans; and it accords honor and dignity to the
concept of true American justice. If one accepts the premises of these
three goals, then I strongly believe this amendment is the best way
forward for our country.
As a general matter, I agree with my colleagues that the time has
come for fair and balanced reform of our broken immigration system.
When I say ``fairness,'' I mean a system of laws that is fair to
everyone in the United States, and especially our wage earners.
I strongly support the provisions in this immigration bill that
strengthen our Nation's borders. Our porous borders are a threat to our
national security, and we have wasted far too long to fix this problem.
I also support the sections of the bill that create tough civil and
criminal penalties for employers who unfairly hire illegal immigrants,
creating both a second-class population and undercutting American
workers. This bill's employment verification system will help ensure
that illegal workers cannot get employment in the United States and
would, therefore, face no choice but to return to their homelands.
As a point of reference, I did not support this bill's creation of a
massive new temporary worker program. Two weeks ago, I supported
Senator Dorgan's two amendments to strike and sunset that program, and
I find it regrettable the Senate did not adopt those amendments. We
have seen a good bit of analysis on the Senate floor in recent days to
the effect that the temporary worker program will be largely
unworkable. To the extent it would work, it would create a wage-based
underclass and a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, as I stated on
the floor 2 weeks ago, I believe guest worker programs--aside from
purely temporary, seasonal work--drive down the wages of hard-working
Americans, and of those who came here by following the law.
With those points in mind, I wish to now turn to my amendment, which
regards the other major component of this bill: the legalization
program.
My amendment reflects a proposal I have been discussing with
Virginians ever since I began my campaign for the Senate last year. I
have always supported tough border security and cracking down on large
employers who hire illegal workers. I also have always supported a path
to legalization for those who came here during a time of extremely lax
immigration laws but who have laid down strong roots in our
communities. I do not, however, favor this path to citizenship for all
undocumented persons. Under the provisions of the immigration bill we
are now debating, virtually all undocumented persons living in the
United States would be eligible to legalize their status and ultimately
become citizens. Estimates are that this number totals 12 million to 20
million people. This is legislative overkill. It is one of the reasons
this bill has aroused the passions of ordinary Americans who have no
opposition to reasonable immigration policies but who see this as an
issue that goes against the grain of true fairness, which is the very
foundation of our society.
My amendment would allow a smaller percentage of undocumented persons
to remain in the United States and legalize their status based on the
depth of a person's roots in their community. Under my proposal,
undocumented persons who have lived in the United States at least 4
years prior to the enactment of the bill could apply to legalize their
status. I note that this 4-year period is even more generous than the
5-year threshold that was contained in several bills the past few
Congresses addressed--bills that were supported by Senators from both
parties and by immigrants' rights groups.
After receiving the application, the Department of Homeland Security
would evaluate a list of objective, measurable criteria to determine
whether the applicant should receive a Z visa and thus be allowed to
get on the path to citizenship.
Among the statutory criteria would be an individual's work history;
payment of Federal or State income taxes; property ownership and
business ownership in the United States; knowledge of English;
attendance, successfully, at American schools; immediate family members
living in the United States; whether the applicant has a criminal
record; and, very importantly, whether the applicant wants to become an
American citizen.
Like the underlying bill, applicants would be given probationary
status while the DHS considers their Z visa application and could
lawfully work during this probationary period.
I believe these provisions are fair to our immigrant population, and
also that they will help us avoid the mistakes this Congress made in
1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, which resulted in a tidal
wave of illegal immigration.
My amendment would also make the underlying bill more practical. It
strikes the bill's unrealistic ``touchback'' requirement. Few
immigrants would have the money or the ability to return to their home
countries on other continents. Most of these persons would lose their
American jobs. They would leave their families in turmoil and place
further strain on our community services. Basic fairness and common
sense dictates that these persons be allowed to apply for a green card
from within the United States.
I believe my amendment sets forth an equitable system that not only
recognizes the contributions of immigrants to our society but also
introduces practical measures that will help us avoid the same mistakes
our country made in 1986 with the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill.
I have heard loudly and clearly from Virginians, and I have talked
with people on all sides of these issues. What I hear over and over
again is that Congress should find a fair system that both protects
American workers and respects the rule of law. This amendment
represents the fairest method I know to do so, and to do so
realistically.
I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 1313 when it comes to a
vote in the Senate.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I gladly yield to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was listening to the description of the
amendment by Senator Webb. I think
[[Page S7124]]
it is a good amendment, and I intend to be prepared to support it. This
amendment is about the treatment of those who have come here without
legal authorization. The underlying bill, by the way, was cobbled
together by a group of people, including the White House, I guess, and
they said anybody who shows up in this country without legal
authorization by December 31 is deemed to then have been legal and will
be given a work permit.
I think Senator Webb's approach is much more sensitive and much more
realistic to our people who have been here 10, 15, 20 years without
legal authorization but they have been model citizens, they raised
families, have had jobs, have done things that would commend them to us
for the future. He is suggesting a much more sensible way of dealing
with that. I think that amendment makes a lot of sense.
I did want to say we had a vote on the guest worker or temporary
worker provisions, and I offered an amendment, or 2 amendments, and the
second amendment was to sunset that after 5 years. I lost that vote by
one vote in the Senate, and I have filed an amendment at the desk and
will attempt to have another vote on that. I have modified section 2
just a bit. But my hope is that the Senate would reconsider and pass
the amendment that would sunset this temporary worker provision after 5
years. Again, the vote was 49 to 48 against my amendment, and we will
have another opportunity to vote on it.
The reason I mention it is the Senator from Virginia mentioned that
amendment and the other amendment I offered as well. I ask the Senator
from Virginia if he doesn't think this piece of legislation, in
addition to legalizing those who have come here as of December 31st of
last year, saying you now have legal status--in addition to that--
saying we believe there are millions of people who don't live here at
this point whom we want to be able to invite in to take American jobs--
I ask the Senator from Virginia whether that makes much sense in the
scheme of trying to create economic opportunity for Americans at the
lower economic scale in this country. There are a lot of people working
at the bottom of the ladder here who want jobs, who can't find jobs,
and find downward pressure on their income. I ask whether the Senator
doesn't believe this temporary worker program displaces people in this
country who need these jobs.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North Dakota I was
very pleased to support both his amendments for those reasons and
reasons similar to them. I hope the Senator can get a vote on his
revised amendment. I think it is important we deal with this
immigration issue in a very realistic and practical manner, with the
focus being the well-being of individuals who are here legally and who
are citizens whose wages and salaries are in many ways being held down
by these types of programs. The guest worker programs are classic
examples of that.
I also would like to say that with respect to the timeline in the
present bill and the cutoff for full legalization being anyone who came
here before December 31 of last year, or before January 1 of this year,
one of the questions that has been raised on my amendment is: Well,
what do we do with these people who haven't been here 4 years? Some
questions have been raised saying this would create an unfairness in
this amendment. But the answer to that--the obvious answer to that is:
What do we do with people who came here after December 31? They are
here. What are we going to do with the people who are here next year?
They are going to be here.
There is always going to be some leakage in our system. What we are
looking for is a measure of fairness for people who have truly put down
roots in their community and to allow them to assimilate and become
American citizens. That is a separate thing from the guest worker
program that the Senator from North Dakota is talking about, and I hope
I get another chance to vote for his amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further for a
question, there are some in this Chamber who say to us: The choice on
immigration is between doing the wrong thing and doing nothing. That is
not the choice at all. That is a false choice. They bring the wrong
thing to the floor of the Senate and say: If you oppose this, then you
are for nothing.
One of the things we are for is enforcing the law. We have a law in
this country about employer sanctions, about illegal immigration,
trying to stop it. All one would have to do would be to enforce the
law. In 2004, there were four cases in the entire United States of
America that were brought by the U.S. Justice Department against
employers who were employing illegal workers, illegal aliens--four.
What does that tell us? That tells us that the administration says: We
surrender on the issue. We surrender.
The other point I wished to make is there is no discussion on the
floor of the Senate in the construct of this bill, within the debate on
this bill, about the American worker. I understand we have an
immigration issue. I fully understand that, and we need to deal with
that. But part and parcel of that, in my judgment, ought to be some
discussion on the floor of the Senate about how this affects the
American worker. We have a lot of workers in this country who aren't
doing very well. It has been a long time since they have seen any
increase in their income, despite their productivity rising. Where is
the debate about the impact on the American worker? It is not selfish
for us to believe that ought to be a part of this discussion.
So I ask the Senator from Virginia whether he believes as well that
when you bring an immigration bill to the floor, you ought to have some
discussion about what is the impact of this issue on the American
worker, on the people who have a high school education or perhaps don't
even have a high school education and who are at the bottom of the
ladder, got up this morning and went to work and are working at minimum
wage, struggling to get by to raise a family to do the best they can
and discover at the end of the day: Oh, by the way, there is more
downward pressure on your income because the employer can bring
somebody through the back door that is able to be paid lower wages,
they will work for less money, even as the bigger employers are
exporting jobs out the front door to China and Sri Lanka and
Bangladesh.
So I ask whether the American worker shouldn't play a bigger role in
the debate on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would say that an enormous amount of work
has gone into this piece of legislation, as we all know. I appreciate
all the energy that the Senator from North Dakota has placed for years
on the interests of the American worker. I share those interests. This
amendment that I offer is based on two things. One is fairness to
everyone, including the American worker, and the other is the
practicality that is this particular part of the legislation.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank my colleague.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Amendment No. 1250
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is scheduled for
a vote later on this evening, and I would like to spend a few minutes
explaining it. This is--well, let me put it this way: If the definition
of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and
expecting a different outcome, the provisions in the underlying bill
that my amendment will correct represents insanity in action because it
repeats a mistake made in the 1986 immigration laws that is within our
power to correct. I believe the amendment I am offering will allow that
correction to take place, and I offer it in that spirit.
At the very least, the American people expect we will not
intentionally repeat mistakes. They don't expect us to be perfect. They
do expect us to do our best, and we owe them that much. But in this
case, doing our best means not repeating a mistake.
Quite simply, the Department of Homeland Security is, under the
current bill, prohibited from using internally all information from Z
visa applications, as well as sharing information with the relevant law
enforcement agencies. That is right. You can actually apply for a Z
visa if you are 1 of the 12 million or so people here in the
[[Page S7125]]
country already in violation of our immigration laws, whether it is
entering without a visa or once having entered with a visa, overstaying
that visa, and if you are seeking the benefits of this underlying bill
which are mainly represented in the form of a Z visa, the information
contained in that application by those 12 million individuals is
effectively shielded from law enforcement authorities. For example, if
an applicant comes forward and is denied a Z visa, this legislation
currently pending prohibits the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Service from using that information in order to apprehend that person
who is not legally present in the country.
What we learned about the 1986 amnesty was that the New York Times
said it created the largest immigration fraud in the history of the
United States. That same view is shared by the general counsel of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service under President Clinton with
regard to statutory restrictions on sharing and using information. That
general counsel, Paul Virtue, noted that this prohibition greatly
contributed to this fraud.
At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times
article be printed in the Recored and I refer my colleagues to the
testimony of Paul Virtue before the House Immigration and Claims
Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee at judiciary house.gov/
judiciary/106-52.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CORNYN. In addition to questions of why we would want to put out
of bounds to law enforcement agencies information which they could use
to investigate and identify fraud and criminal conduct, you might ask:
Why the double standard? For example, we don't afford these kinds of
robust confidentiality provisions for other classes of immigrants such
as asylees or battered women or those who fall under the temporary
protected status provisions. So why would we have a double standard?
When an asylum seeker applies for legal status, that asylum seeker must
submit an application and return at a later date for the decision. If
that asylum seeker's application is denied, then he or she is taken
into custody on the spot, based on information contained in the
application.
Now, the proponents of this bill will tell us that without these
guarantees of confidentiality, those who are already here in the
country in violation of our immigration laws will not come forward and
seek the benefits of the Z visa provided for under the bill, which
leads me to ask: Aren't we granting the biggest benefit that can ever
be given to anybody in the world--legal status and a path to American
citizenship--even though these individuals have violated our laws?
And to be clear, we are talking about those who cannot even establish
that they meet the minimum requirements to get this valuable benefit.
Even worse, they have continually flouted our immigration and criminal
laws. Why would we consciously give these individuals broad privacy
protections by the mere filing of their application for Z status, and
why would they be treated differently from other immigrants?
The proponents say they do exempt from confidentiality those who
commit fraud or are a part of some other scheme in connection with
their application. Of course, that is the very least we should do. But
this bill does not go nearly far enough to effectively enforce our
immigration laws and protect the American people from those who could
and would and might do us harm.
For example, on page 311 of the bill, in section 604(b) labeled
``Exceptions to Confidentiality,'' the drafters of this bill have
chosen to protect aliens who are criminal absconders who have not been
removed from the United States; that is, people who are under orders of
deportation but who have not yet been removed. This is, in fact, a
felony offense under 8 U.S.C. 1253, which is punishable for up to 4
years in prison. Yet the underlying bill would provide confidentiality
for that individual.
We all know that hundreds of thousands of individuals come across our
borders each year in violation of our immigration laws. But what most
Americans would be shocked to realize is that, according to recent
estimates, almost 700,000 aliens who have immigrated illegally or
overstayed who have been ordered deported have simply failed to comply
with that court order. How many Americans think that it is OK to ignore
a court order? How many Americans, after receiving a subpoena from a
court, ignore it and simply skip that court date?
Let me give two examples of what I am talking about. In section
604(b), the drafters claim they allow law enforcement to go after
information for those denied Z status because of felonies and serious
criminal offenses, but what is missing are those aliens who have
actually committed those felony offenses but who have not yet been
actually convicted. In section 604, the drafters further claim they
resolve the problem by allowing law enforcement access to those who
commit fraud or misrepresentations in their Z applications. But again,
what is missing is law enforcement's ability to reach third-party
fraud: Where the alien, him or herself may not be complicit but to
prosecute the third party, the Government needs the information from
the Z application filed by such individuals in order to make the case.
Simply stated and summarized, fraud by third parties involved in a Z
application; crimes that have not yet resulted in a conviction;
absconders--people who have ignored a valid court order and who have
yet to be physically removed--as well as those Z visa applicants who
are denied on noncriminal grounds, all of those categories of
information are rendered confidential and kept from law enforcement
authorities when it comes to investigating crime and other wrongful
conduct.
As I said earlier today, in fact, if we were more interested in
regaining the public's confidence that we were actually serious about
passing an immigration law that could be and would be vigorously
enforced, I don't think I would be up here offering this amendment
because it would be agreed to without the necessity of a vote. But
strangely, to me, this commonsense sort of amendment is being resisted.
In a way, it helps merely confirm what most people across the country--
particularly in my State--seem to suspect, which is that Congress
cannot be trusted and is not serious about creating an immigration law
system that can be adequately enforced.
As my colleagues know, I offered a separate amendment that would
categorically bar fugitive aliens from receiving the benefits under
this bill. I believe this is an issue of fundamental fairness and
integrity of the system. In exchange for what has been offered to this
population, which is the largest legalization program in our Nation's
history, we should be able to say that for any person who applies for
and receives benefits under this program, we will authorize the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service to look at that application
and to, if necessary, if warranted under law, arrest that individual
who made that application and deport them, in accordance with our laws
that Congress has already passed.
But the bill the Senate is considering today turns a blind eye to
those who apply for the benefits under this bill and are denied. This
bill would allow them simply to slide back into the shadows--the
precise problem we are being told we are trying to fix.
I daresay if you ask a random taxpayer on the street this simple
question: Assume an alien comes forward to apply for legal status under
this bill. Because the applicant doesn't satisfy one of the criteria
for being awarded legal status, the applicant is denied benefits under
the bill. What happens to that individual under the Senate immigration
bill? If you were to ask that question to a man or woman on the street,
I bet you that 100 out of 100 times people would say: Well, they ought
to go home, they ought not to be granted benefits under the bill.
Certainly, they would say you ought not to hide evidence of fraud or
criminality or wrongdoing that could be investigated and prosecuted.
Yet the so-called confidentiality provisions my amendment addresses,
under the current bill, would prevent law enforcement officials from
using information on the application to locate and remove a significant
population of those who don't qualify for legalization but have applied
for it.
To be clear, this is for individuals who have actually applied for a
Z visa, or benefits under the program, and
[[Page S7126]]
have been denied, not those whose Z visa status has been granted.
This is, in essence, providing an opportunity--to significant
categories of individuals whose applications are considered and
rejected--to slide back into the shadows, which is the very problem we
are told this solution is designed to solve.
The whole point of this exercise, we continue to be told, is to
enhance U.S. security by bringing people out of the shadows. But this
bill would draw people out, only to allow them to slide back in if they
demonstrate they are disqualified for the benefits under the bill--the
very people we ought to be focusing on and having deported in
accordance with our laws.
I remind my colleagues of our Nation's recent history with mass
legalization and the consequences of prohibitions on Federal agencies
sharing information.
As I have stated, reasonable observers have concluded that the 1986
amnesty was rife with fraud. That is the conclusion of the New York
Times in the article that will be part of this record, dated November
12, 1989. The title is ``Migrants' False Claims: Fraud on a Huge
Scale.''
We also note, for example, from the 9/11 Commission staff statements,
that Mohamed and Mahmud Abouhalima, conspirators in the 1993 World
Trade Center bombing, were granted green cards, or legal permanent
resident status, under the Special Agricultural Workers Program, which
was an amnesty program created by the 1986 bill.
Under this Special Agricultural Workers Program, a key component of
the 1986 amnesty, these applicants had to provide evidence they had
worked on perishable crops for at least 90 days between May 1, 1985,
and May 1, 1986; their residence did not have to be ``continuous'' or
``unlawful.'' Nearly 1 million illegal aliens received legal permanent
resident status under this amnesty--``twice the number of foreigners
normally employed in agriculture'' at that time, according to the 9/11
Commission staff statements.
In other words, the inference is inescapable that there was fraud on
a huge scale, based on the very kind of confidentiality provisions this
bill includes and which my amendment would remove.
I wish to make one other point about this ill-conceived
confidentiality provision. Under this bill we are considering, Congress
would even prohibit the use of information from sworn third-party
affidavits that are one of the documents that can prove eligibility.
Who could not, with a little bit of creativity and initiative, get some
third party to provide an affidavit that says: Yes, you were present on
June 1, 2007; thus, you are eligible for the benefits under this
program.
If you designed a program to welcome and invite and embrace fraud
more, I cannot imagine what it would be. Yet that very same sort of
affidavit could be rendered confidential and could not be shared with
law enforcement personnel, unless my amendment is passed.
We already know from well-documented prosecutions of document vendors
and other legalization cases that the type of documents submitted--
especially sworn affidavits from third parties, not even relatives--no
qualification, just third parties--have been used routinely to further
fraud.
At the very least, we should not repeat the mistakes of 1986 by
allowing the continued use of sworn affidavits by applicants to
establish eligibility for the Z visa. My amendment takes care of these
concerns.
We know one thing: Criminals and terrorists have abused--and will
continue to seek ways to abuse--our immigration system in order to
enter and remain in this country.
I regret this bill we are debating fails to give law enforcement the
commonsense tools they need in order to prevent terrorists and others
from exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in any massive
legalization.
My colleagues may tell you there is a confidentiality exception for
national security and for fraud. But to rely solely on these exceptions
is simply wishful thinking; it is not going to happen. It doesn't go
nearly far enough to reach the kinds of fraud and criminal conduct and
other wrongful conduct I have mentioned.
This kind of information law enforcement needs may provide valuable
leads of which they were previously unaware. Failure to allow law
enforcement to connect the dots is a deadly mistake I have heard my
colleagues promise they would ``never allow to happen again.'' So I
urge those who are truly serious about the commitment to make sure this
kind of fraud and the danger associated with it doesn't ever happen
again to support my amendment and make a crucial improvement to this
legislation.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
Exhibit 1
[From the New York Times, Nov. 12, 1989]
Migrants' False Claims: Fraud on a Huge Scale
(By Roberto Suro)
In one of the most extensive immigration frauds ever
perpetrated against the United States Government, thousands
of people who falsified amnesty applications will begin to
acquire permanent resident status next month under the 1986
immigration law.
More than 1.3 million illegal aliens applied to become
legal immigrants under a one-time amnesty for farm workers.
The program was expected to accommodate only 250,000 aliens
when Congress enacted it as a politically critical part of a
sweeping package of changes in immigration law.
Now a variety of estimates by Federal officials and
immigration experts place the number of fraudulent
applications at somewhere between 250,000 and 650,000.
lack of manpower and money
The Immigration and Naturalization Service has identified
398,000 cases of possible fraud in the program, but the
agency admits that it lacks both the manpower and the money
to prosecute individual applicants. The agency is to begin
issuing permanent resident status to amnesty applicants on
Dec. 1, and officials said they were approving 94 percent of
the applicants over all.
Evidence of vast abuse of the farm worker amnesty program
has already led to important changes in the way immigration
policies are conceived in Congress. For example, recent
legislation to aid immigration by refugees from the Soviet
Union was modified specifically to avoid the uncontrolled
influx that has occurred under the agricultural amnesty
program.
Supporters of the farm worker amnesty argue that it
accomplished its principal aim of insuring the nation a
cheap, reliable and legal supply of farm workers and that it
made an inadvertent but important contribution in
legitimizing a large part of the nation's illegal alien
population. #1,000 Workers, 30 Acres Critics point to cases
like that of Larry and Sharon Marval of Newark. Last year
they pleaded guilty to immigration fraud charges after
immigration service investigators alleged that the Marvals
were part of an operation that helped about 1,000 aliens
acquire amnesty with falsified documents showing they had all
worked on a mere 30 acres of farmland.
The amnesty for farm workers was a last-minute addition to
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which sought
to halt illegal immigration with a two-part strategy. Under a
general amnesty, illegal aliens who could prove they had
lived in the United States since before Jan. 1, 1982, were
given the chance to leave their underground existence and
begin a process leading to permanent resident status. And
to stem further illegal immigration, the employment of
illegal aliens was made a crime.
The agricultural amnesty program was adopted at the
insistence of politically powerful fruit and vegetable
growers in California and Texas who wanted to protect their
labor force. In several respects, the provisions for the
program were much less strict than the general amnesty
program, which drew 1.7 million applicants. Instead of having
to document nearly five years of continuous residence, most
agricultural worker applicants had to show only that they had
done 90 days of farm work between May 1, 1985, and May 1,
1986.
Representative Charles E. Schumer, a Brooklyn Democrat who
was an author of this Special Agricultural Worker provision,
said that in retrospect the program seemed ``too open'' and
susceptible to fraud. But he argued that budget decisions had
made the battle to combat fraud more difficult.
``There has not been enough diligence in tracking down the
fraud,'' he said, ``because funding for the I.N.S. has been
cut by the White House in each of the last three budgets,
even though everyone agreed when the bill passed that greater
I.N.S. manpower was essential to make it work.''
Congress rarely raises the immigration service budget above
Administration requests.
Aside from its budget problems, the immigration service has
repeatedly come under fire this year in Congress and in an
audit by the Justice Department for what was termed
mismanagement and administrative inefficiency.
John F. Shaw, Assistant Immigration Commissioner, agreed
that ``manpower restrictions'' at the agency were a major
factor in the fraud in the agricultural amnesty program. He
said much of the fraud ``shot through a window of
opportunity'' when the agency was frantically trying to deal
with many new burdens of the 1986 immigration law.
[[Page S7127]]
people who sold false documents
Mr. Shaw said law-enforcement efforts had been limited to
the people who sold false documents to applicants for the
farm worker amnesty. The immigration service has made 844
arrests and won 413 convictions in cases alleging fraud in
the amnesty program. The people involved ranged from notaries
public to field crew leaders. ``It was a cottage industry,''
Mr. Shaw said.
The immigration service can revoke legal status if it finds
the applicant committed fraud, but even this effort is
limited. Only applications that appear linked to a fraud
conspiracy are held for review, as when an unusually large
number of applicants assert that they have worked in the same
place. Some 398,000 aliens have fallen into this category
since the application period ended last Nov. 30, but it is
likely that many of them will get resident status.
Mr. Shaw said the fraud conspiracies often involved farms
that actually did employ some migrant labor. So it is
frequently impossible to separate legitimate from illicit
claims.
Given the limited law-enforcement effort, no precise count
of fraud in the agricultural amnesty program is possible. But
some rough estimates are possible based on information from
the aliens themselves. An extensive survey conducted in three
rural Mexican communities by the Center for U.S.-Mexican
Studies at the University of California in San Diego found
that only 72 percent of those who identified themselves as
applicants for farm worker amnesty had work histories that
qualified them for the program. A similar survey conducted by
Mexican researchers in Jalisco in central Mexico found that
only 59 percent qualified.
But fraud alone does not explain why the program produced
more than five times the applicants Congress expected. Frank
D. Bean, co-director of the Program for Research on
Immigration Policy at the Urban Institute in Washington, said
the miscalculation in the Special Agricultural Worker program
reflected longstanding difficulties in tracking the number of
temporary illegal migrants from Mexico.
``It is at least plausible that a very large percentage of
the S.A.W. applicants had done agricultural work in the U.S.
even if they did not meet the specific time requirements of
the amnesty,'' Mr. Bean said. `It Was a Weak Program'.
Mr. Shaw of the immigration service, and other critics of
the law, believe there were more fundamental flaws. ``It was
a weak program and it was poorly articulated in the law,'' he
said.
Unlike almost all other immigration programs, which put the
burden of proof on the applicant, the farm amnesty put the
burden on the Government. Consequently, aliens with even the
most rudimentary documentation cannot be rejected unless the
Government can prove their claims are false.
Stephen Rosenbaum, staff attorney for California Rural
Legal Assistance, a nonprofit service organization for farm
workers, argued that there was no other way to structure an
immigration program for an occupation ``that does not produce
a paper trail.'' He noted that farm workers are paid in cash
and neither the employers nor the workers keep detailed
records. `Immense Logistical Problems.'
``You can argue the wisdom of a farm worker amnesty, but if
you have one, you have to recognize the immense logistical
problems involved in producing evidence,'' he said.
The immigration service at first tried to apply the
stringent practices common to other immigration programs,
like rejecting applicants with little explanation when their
documents were suspect. But three lawsuits brought in
Florida, Texas and California over the last two years forced
the agency to follow the broader standards mandated by
Congress.
The burden-of-proof issue arose again earlier this year
when the House of Representatives approved legislation that
would have made any person who could prove Soviet citizenship
eligible for political refugee status.
A legislator with a powerful role on immigration policy,
Senator Alan K. Simpson, Republican of Wyoming, eliminated
the provision because of concerns raised by the farm worker
amnesty program, an aide said. Mr. Simpson, who is on the
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee
Affairs, substituted a series of specific circumstances that
had to be met for a Soviet citizen to be considered a
refugee, like denial of a particular job because of religious
beliefs.
Immigration experts believe that the agricultural amnesty
program will probably color policy debates over other
categories of aliens whose qualifications will be difficult
to document, like the anti-Sandinista rebels of Nicaragua.
``One certain product'' of the agricultural amnesty
program, Representative Schumer said, ``is that in developing
immigration policies in the future, Congress will be much
more wary of the potential for fraud and will do more to stop
it.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. DeMINT pertaining to the submission of S. Con.
Res. 35 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent
and Senate Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, so I understand, how much time do I have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 hour 42 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield such time as I might use.
On the Cornyn amendment, the issue is basically confidentiality. Why
is confidentiality important? What we are trying to do with this
proposal is to say to the 12.5 million who are living here, the
undocumented as well as those in agricultural jobs: Come out of the
shadows, and if you are going to meet the other requirements of the
bill--paying fines, go to the end of the line, demonstrate solid work
achievement and accomplishment--you will eventually be able to get in
line after the backlog is completed for a green card and citizenship.
We are saying to the individuals: If you are undocumented today, we
want you to register.
There is a question with regard to people who are undocumented today.
If I go down and say my name is--maybe an undocumented Irish person,
say his name is Halloran, and he goes in and says: I am Halloran and
live on Linden Street. I am undocumented, my wife is undocumented, and
my children are undocumented. We want these people to come out of the
shadows and register to begin this process, right? Right. We have to
make sure those people are going to have a certain amount of
confidentiality, that they are not thinking they are just going to sign
in and register and report to be deported. That is what the Cornyn
amendment effectively does, is report to deport because he eliminates
all kinds of protections of confidentiality.
We provide levels of protection of confidentiality for individuals,
but not if they have been involved in any criminal activity and any
fraudulent activity.
The Senator from Texas mentions the 1986 act. He has been mentioning
the 1986 act time and time again. I responded that President Reagan
signed that act. Republicans were in charge at that time, and they
administered that act from 1986 to 1992. I voted against that
legislation for many of the reasons that have been outlined. That is a
different time.
If they want to talk about what President Reagan and what the
Republicans did at that time, they can be my guest. But the fact is, as
we do know, there were incidents where fraud was committed during that
program in the submission of various agricultural documents, and fraud
was committed. That is all outlined in a 1988 report which has been
quoted here. But that has been the document. We have not seen other
documents about similar kinds of fraudulent activities.
As a result, what did we do with this legislation? We did a number of
things because of what happened in 1986.
We provide additional protections and requirements in these areas of
identification. We provide a number of protections in this legislation,
and I will include those at the conclusion of my statement.
Secondly, we have included in this legislation that if the DHS
believes fraud has been committed, they can move ahead and deport. Do
my colleagues understand? If the Department of Homeland Security thinks
fraud has been committed by these individuals, they can move ahead and
deport. That has been included. We have also included random audits of
these various programs.
The point that has been made that in 1986 there were irregularities
we accept and agree. The fact that the 1986 act was not well managed,
we agree. Was there fraud in a number of these affidavits? We say, yes,
and that is why we took action in this legislation to address it. And I
will include those particular citations.
I will run through these points very quickly. If the applicant is
inadmissible for criminal reasons or an alien smuggler, that
information is turned over to the local law enforcement and police. If
there has been a conviction of a crime, criminal activity, smuggling,
marriage fraud, all of that information is turned over to the police.
If there is any indication of any kind of intelligence activity, it is
turned over to the Department of Homeland Security.
[[Page S7128]]
We have written into this legislation protections so we are not going
to have abuses of confidentiality. But--but, Mr. President--when we are
talking about other kinds of activities--for example, if they fail the
English test, or because there is a certain amount of work requirement
time, there is an issue as to whether they completed the work
requirement, we protect their confidentiality. If they fail the English
test, we protect their confidentiality. If there is a technical
registration issue, we protect their confidentiality.
This is enormously important because if we do not protect their
confidentiality, they are not going to register. It is as clear and
simple as that.
This represents a very careful balance that was worked out. I respect
the Senator from Texas on this issue, but it is important that we have
guarantees for individuals if we expect them to register as this system
is being set up because it is going to transition. We know parts of
this system are not going to go into effect until we have border
security, and if we expect individuals to participate in that system,
we have to guarantee their confidentiality. We do so. It is enormously
important. This system isn't going to function unless we do.
If the Cornyn amendment is adopted, the bottom line is this system
will not function, and it will not work because as individuals in this
community are wondering whether they ought to sign up for this system,
by and large they are going to check with perhaps their local parish,
maybe their local priest, maybe a nonprofit organization, social
service organizations, community organizations in which they have
confidence and trust, and those individuals are going to know whether
there is confidentiality or not. Those individuals upon whom they rely
in the local community, extended members of their family, nonprofit
organizations, church organizations, unless they are able to give the
assurance to these individuals that their confidentiality is going to
be protected, we are not going to have people involved, and we are not
going to have success with this legislation.
As I mentioned, in the incidence of fraud, we have addressed those
extensively with provisions in the legislation. If there are incidents
of fraud, criminal activity, terrorist activity, any of the other kinds
of issues that involve criminality, of course, that protection is
effectively out the window. We provide confidentiality, but limited in
a very important way. It is enormously important to the success of the
program.
Mr. President, I anticipate that we are going to have presentations
by my friend and colleague from Alabama sometime with regard to the
earned-income tax credit. I have comments in response to that
amendment. I know there will be an alternative amendment that will be
offered in that area. I will address the Senate when we have that
particular proposal.
Eventually, we are going to have the Lieberman amendment, which is a
very thoughtful amendment. We will have opportunity to address it at
that time.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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, I ask that the time during the quorum
call be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate the tremendous effort that
has been made on both sides of the aisle to try to address the
immigration dilemma facing our country. In my view, other than the war
in Iraq, the war on terror, there is nothing more important before us,
and we should leave the bill on this floor for as long as it takes to
get it right because as difficult as it is to get it right, it seems to
me that failure is not an option. If we fail, then what we have done is
admitted that we have just simply allowed a situation to continue where
perhaps a million new illegal persons will come into our country each
year. That contravenes the rule of law upon which this country is
founded, it works against our ability to be a country that lives by the
motto that is engraved up there on the wall, ``one from many,'' to
assimilate into our country the number of people who are coming, and it
is a poor example for the rest of the world when we suggest to them
that they create governments that rely upon the rule of law. It also
absolutely enrages the American citizens, who look at Washington and
say that the Government has done a horrible job for the last 10, 15, 20
years in enforcing our immigration laws. Americans have, in many cases,
lost faith that we even have the ability to fix the mess. I used to
feel that way myself before I came here. I haven't been here that
long--just 4 years.
Twelve years ago, I was a candidate for President of the United
States. I was in those debates which we watched on television last
night, or those kinds of debates. One of my proposals was that we
should create a new branch of the military in order to secure the
border. In 1994, 1995, and 1996, Americans were upset about our
inability to distinguish between legal immigration, which is the
lifeblood of our country, and illegal immigration, which is an affront
to the rule of law and the principles of what it means to be an
American. So this has been going on year after year after year.
When I was home last week in Tennessee, I spent a lot of time
listening and talking to Tennesseans. In fact, I just left a group of
homebuilders from Tennessee in my office who were talking to me about
the immigration bill and about some concerns they have. But of all the
concerns that came through to me last week in my conversations with
Tennesseans, it boils down to this: We don't really trust you guys in
Washington, DC, to fix this problem. You don't seem to be willing to do
it.
So I have a suggestion today that I will make, an amendment that I
intend to offer. I won't call it up at this moment, but I want my
colleagues to know about it and the country to know about it because I
think if this bill were to become law, it would increase the level of
trust the American people would have in the ability of this Government
to enforce whatever law we pass. I am not suggesting it would solve
everything or that we would regain trust overnight, but I am suggesting
it would be a step forward. I will describe the legislation in just a
moment, but it boils down to this: We would involve the Governors of
the border States between the United States and Mexico in determining
whether the new border control system we put in place is actually
operational.
Right now, particularly amendment offered by my distinguished
colleague from New Hampshire (Senator Gregg) the other day, the
proposed bill has been strengthened in the following way: He said that
his amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to
certify that it has established and demonstrated operational control
over the entire U.S.-Mexico land border before other parts of the bill
involving legal status could go into effect. We call this the trigger.
Senator Isakson from Georgia suggested this last year. It is a wise
idea. It says, first we secure the border, and then, when it is secure,
we do the other things about legalization of people already here, to
the extent we decide to do that. But the question still remains: Who is
going to say when the border is secure? The people out across the
country--at least those in Tennessee--don't trust us, don't trust the
Government in Washington, because of this poor record of 20 years. It
doesn't matter that I just got here 4 years ago. They look up here and
see the Government and they say: You didn't do it last year, you didn't
do it 3 years ago, you didn't do it 10 years ago or 15 years ago, so
how do we know you are ever going to do it, even if you pass the law?
Well, the three things I can think of that would make a difference
are, No. 1, to pass a bill with teeth in it. For example, the Gregg
amendment says
[[Page S7129]]
there will be 20,000 Border Patrol agents. That is more than we
currently have. Today, there are 13,000. There will be four unmanned
aerial vehicles. There will be 300 miles of vehicle barriers.
Currently, there are about 78. There will have to be at least 370 miles
of fencing already built. Now, there are 700 already authorized by the
Secure Fence Act of 2006, and that hasn't changed, but 370 miles would
have to be built. There would have to be 70 ground-based radar and
camera towers on the southwest border. There would have to be a
permanent end to catch and release. There would have to be an
employment verification system that requires employers to
electronically verify new hires within 18 months and all existing
employees within 3 years. All of those things would have to be in
place. The words are they would have to be ``established and
demonstrated, that the Federal Government had operational control over
the entire U.S.-Mexico land border.''
The amendment that is already part of the bill, the Gregg amendment,
said the Director of Homeland Security would certify that. What I add
with my amendment is it has to be concurred in, agreed with, signed off
on by three of the four Governors on the United States-Mexico border.
In other words, we pass the law with teeth--the teeth of the Gregg
amendment and maybe more. I have suggested, and others seem to have
agreed, what we ought to do is then fund the law. Either the President
challenges us to pass an appropriations bill within 30 days after we
pass the law, we do it ourselves, or we set up a trust fund--the way we
do for highways and the way we do for Social Security, the way we do
for anything else--and we say that money goes to secure the border, to
fund these things. We pass a law with teeth. Then we provide the money.
Then the Director of Homeland Security says the border is secure. That
is the trigger. My amendment would say: The Governors of the border
States, three out of four, have to agree.
The Governors of the border States are not in Washington, DC. They
have not been infected with whatever is up here. They have not even
been vaccinated. I have been up here long enough to be vaccinated with
whatever disease is up here, and for that reason more Tennesseans trust
the Governors than they do the Washington officials to solve this
problem. If the Governors of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas
say yes, the border is secure, we agree with the certification of the
Department of Homeland Security, I think that would be good enough for
most Americans. That is the point of my amendment.
We need to put together a good bill that secures the border first.
After border security, the other biggest problem is what to do about
those already here illegally. I think that issue is less of an issue if
most Americans believe we would pass a law that permitted the Border
Patrol agents and the verification system to be done, that we would
fund it and we would actually do it as certified by the Director of
Homeland Security and the Governors on the border. Then I think they
would be willing to accept different solutions for those already here.
But the week before last I voted for the amendment offered by Senator
Vitter that would have sent the bill's drafters back to the drawing
board on the question of what to do about the 12 million illegal
persons, more or less, who are already here.
Senator Hutchison and Senator Corker have done some very important
work on this issue, which I intend to support and to cosponsor. That
amendment would require illegal immigrants, who want to work here, to
return to their home countries and reenter through legal channels in
addition to paying a fine and passing the criminal background check.
In addition to that, this bill should be about another subject about
which we hear almost nothing, and that is the number of people who come
here legally every year. A little more than a million people come into
the United States each year legally. Today, if I remember the figures
right, most are family members. Some come here as students. Some come
here as researchers, to create jobs for us. Some come here as refugees.
For those Americans who come here legally and who are prospective
citizens, especially given the large number of people coming from
overseas, we need to do everything we can to help those persons become
Americans.
I have filed several amendments. They seek to promote learning
English, our common language, and what it means to become an American
through an understanding of history and civics. For example, one of
these amendments will help these legal immigrants learn English and
what it means to be an American, to codify the oath of allegiance, and
to make English our national language.
Another amendment would ask the Government Accountability Office to
provide a comprehensive report on the costs imposed on the public and
private sector by having millions of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents who are not proficient in English. So far in this debate the
Senate has already passed my amendment to establish a Presidential
award to recognize companies who have taken extraordinary efforts to
help their employees learn English and American history and civics.
Some may say that is not so important, we all agree with that. It is
awfully important. If you take a look at Europe today and you see the
difficulty France has helping immigrants become French, and that
Germany has helping immigrant workers become German, and that Japan
has--because no one has an idea of what it might mean to become
Japanese if you are not born Japanese--you can see how fortunate we are
in this country to have literally invented the concept of becoming
American. We say it does not matter what your race is, it doesn't
matter who your grandfather is, you come here, you take the oath George
Washington gave his officers at Valley Forge and you say: I am not
whatever I was. I pledge allegiance to America. I learned the language,
I learned the history, and we have a few principles we agree on, and I
am an American. I am proud of where I came from, but I am prouder to be
an American. Race doesn't matter. Religion doesn't matter. We pride
ourselves on that. It is a tremendous advantage we have, so we ought
not lose sight of the importance of helping legal citizens learn
English and what it means to be an American.
I have heard some talk that encouraging people to learn English is
somehow divisive. I can't imagine that. In fact, it is the reverse. It
is our unifier. It unifies us, to have a common language. It unifies us
to know that the rule of law and equal opportunity are common
principles.
We debate what that means, and often they collide and conflict and we
have to work that out as legislators, but we all agree on the same
common principles and we enjoy the fact we have a common language, so I
can speak to the President, and I can argue with the Senator from
Colorado or I can agree with him as we are doing on an Iraq piece of
legislation right now. We have a common language.
So, common language, what it means to be an American, finding many
different ways to honor these new citizens who come here legally--that
ought to be as important a part of this bill as securing the border and
creating a verification system in dealing with the people who already
got here illegally.
Primarily I came to the floor this afternoon to let my colleagues
know I have a suggestion for how to begin to regain the trust of the
American people on this issue, and that is this bill should pass with
strong new provisions for border security, with funding to pay for it,
and with a trigger that says the legalization parts of the bill don't
take effect for 2, 3, 4, maybe even 5 years, until the border is
secure.
Then the question is how are we going to know if the border is
secure? The bill says trust the Director of Homeland Security. I say
ask him, pay attention to him or her, but also trust the Governors of
the border States. Let three out of the four Governors, of California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas concur with the Director of Homeland
Security that the border is secure before we begin the legalization
process, and I think the American people might buy it, they might
believe that, and we might begin to regain their trust, after 20 years
of mismanagement, that we are willing to take seriously securing the
border and establishing respect again so we can have a rule of law.
[[Page S7130]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. I thank my friend from Tennessee for his comments on the
importance of immigration reform. I would say there is agreement in
this Chamber among both Democrats and Republicans that what we need to
do is secure our borders. The legislation before us today and the
legislation we have been working on is, in fact, intended to secure our
borders. We all recognize we need to move from a system of lawlessness
and broken borders that create a wake of victims, to a system of law
and order and a system of immigration reform that works for our
country. We have been making significant progress as we move forward
with this legislation. At this point we have already had 15 rollcall
votes on this legislation. We expect to have another seven rollcall
votes on this legislation as we move forward today. That gets us up to
22 rollcall votes. Last year before cloture was invoked on the
immigration bill that was before the Senate, there were, at that time,
23 rollcall votes. So by the end of tonight we should be at a point
where we would have equaled at least the number of votes we had last
year.
We have some difficult amendments still coming up that we will be
voting on, both today and tomorrow, but it seems to me we are making
significant progress, and I appreciate the hard work that is going on
today on the Democratic side as well as the Republican side.
Again, I appreciate the leadership of Senator Reid. What he did is
say: I am going to take the time of the Senate, 100 Senators. All of us
here in the Chamber know how important our time is. We get a 6-year
license to serve as Senators, so how we spend our time and how our time
is allocated is at a very high premium. What Senator Reid did was to
say a long time ago we would spend the latter part of May, and now we
are into June, dealing with this huge issue of immigration reform. At
the end of the day it is a national security issue that goes to the
heart of what Senator Alexander was saying, which is we have to secure
the borders of this country, we have to deal with the economic
realities that have created the immigration issues we are facing here
today, we have to deal with the reality of 12 million undocumented
workers who live here in the shadows of America's society, and we have
to create a system for immigration that is going to work into the
future.
The people who have worked on this, including President Bush in the
White House, have helped us move this debate forward--hopefully closer
to conclusion.
I see my friend from New Jersey, who is I think ready to speak, so I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that
Senator Reid be added as a cosponsor of the Menendez-Hagel amendment,
No. 1194.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1194
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me first commend my distinguished
colleague from Colorado, who has been a voice of reason throughout this
whole process. He has been a leader in trying to fashion a
comprehensive immigration reform that is tough and smart. We need
immigration reform that is tough as it relates to making sure our
borders are protected. We have not only the right but the obligation to
secure those borders and ensure that we have the wherewithal and the
resources to make sure only those who cross, cross in a fashion that is
safe, legal and orderly. At the same time, we need immigration reform
that deals with our economy, fueling that economy, and finally finds
justice for individuals who are often subject to human trafficking as
well as exploitation.
To my distinguished colleague from Colorado, I tip my hat for the
tremendous effort he has made--and that brings us to where we are
today. But I do want to go toward one of the pending amendments that
will be voted on in the next block. It is the amendment I have offered
with Senator Hagel and many others that goes to the core of one of the
great issues the Senate will decide as it relates to this immigration
bill, and that is whether families and the reunification of families is
still a value to the Senate, is still a value in our family, whether
families who come together and are strengthened by being together and
helping each other and working with each other and nurturing each other
and by so doing strengthening communities in the process are to be
preserved, or are they, in terms of that battle, likely to be
eliminated and struck, at least in our immigration context?
I certainly hope when the Senate comes to vote, it will be voting in
a way that is in line with the many speeches I have heard here, that I
have heard in committee hearings, that I have heard in the other body,
in the House of Representatives, where I served before coming here,
about family values, family reunification is going to be preserved. It
is time to put our votes where our values are. The Menendez-Hagel
amendment offers that opportunity.
Now, I do wish to wave my saber to the managers of the bill. I have
heard some suggestion that there may be an attempt to offer a budget
point of order which would require a higher vote total. I would simply
say that there are also budget points of order on the underlying
substitute. If in fact we are going to go down that slippery slope,
then I would have the expectation myself to be offering budget points
of order against the substitute. I think what is fair is to have a vote
up or down on the amendment as it relates to the majority of the
Senate's will. We will see what the majority will of the Senate is.
But if we are going to move down that road, I would acknowledge that
there is a budget point of order as it relates to the underlying
substitute. So I hope we will not move to that type of tactic as we
pursue the vote on this amendment.
Now, it seems to me that under the existing bill, people who apply
under the existing rule, under the law as it is today, who observe the
law, who follow the rules, who said to their family member: No, no, do
not come to the United States, wait your turn, follow the law, obey the
rules, who filed an application as is a right of a U.S. citizen to file
for a petition for their immediate relative, who paid their application
fee, whose Government took their application fee, whose Government went
ahead and made an analysis of that petition to see if it was a petition
that was lawfully entitled to be approved, and who approved the very
essence of that petition saying: Yes, this person, as a U.S. citizen,
has the right--the right--to go ahead and apply for their family
member, their brother or sister, their mother or father, their son or
daughter--that is the universe that we are talking about--and says:
Having approved my documentation and having approved of that petition,
then you must wait your turn to the time that ultimately the priority
date will invoke the possibility for you to come to the United States.
That is the law. That is obeying the law. That is the rule of law. So
you would think that in the legislation we are debating, those who have
obeyed the law, followed the rules, and those who are U.S. citizens and
have done the right thing, that we would not extinguish, eliminate
their right for having done the right thing--for having done the right
thing.
But that is the very essence of what this bill does, unless we adopt
our amendment. Under the bill, not only does, of course, the Senate
bill propose a radical change to who and how you can come to this
country, but it also cancels the applications that are pending--
pending--of many people who have been waiting patiently in line for
family-based visas. If you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent
resident, you filed after May of 2005, the date that arbitrarily was
taken and put into the bill to bring in a relative to the family
immigration system, your application is gone. It is voided. You are
told: Get to the back of the line--the back of the line, by the way,
which is the back of the line with people who violated the law, who
violated the law. Imagine that.
Whose right is being extinguished here? Not the family member who is
waiting abroad. No. The right of the individual that is being
extinguished is the U.S. citizen. That is where the right accrues. It
is that person who has
[[Page S7131]]
the right to make this claim under existing law.
So we take away their right after they filed the petition, paid their
fees, and told their family members to wait. They are told to get in
the back of the line. The back of the line is after those individuals
who did not follow the law and obey the rules.
It boggles the mind. Under the Senate bill, employment-based
immigrants are allowed to continue their applications as long as they
are pending after the date of enactment. Employment-based verification.
What about those families who have done everything right? It is only
fair, in my mind, that family-based immigrants be given the same
treatment.
The Menendez-Hagel amendment goes a long way to restoring fairness to
this situation by doing what? We simply take the cutoff date that is in
the bill, May 2005, and we say: Do not treat American citizens any
worse than you are going to treat those who came into the country in an
undocumented fashion. You are going to give them a benefit, January 1,
2007. They had to be here by January 1, 2007. Well, then, let those who
followed the law, obeyed the rules, paid their fees, told their
families to wait, they have the same benefit: January 1, 2007.
It is not outside the ``grand bargain.'' It is within the same
context. You want to clear out a backlog? Fine, clear out a backlog but
be fair in the process. Do not extinguish the rights of U.S. citizens.
It is important to understand, as we talk about this, the stringent
requirements that exist under the law today governing family
sponsorship for immigration. They would continue to apply in these
cases. Any U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident wishing to sponsor
a family member, as part of the approval of that petition, must
demonstrate that he or she earns at least 125 percent of the Federal
poverty level and must sign a legally enforceable ``affidavit of
support,'' pledging to ensure his or her relative will not become a
public charge.
On top of that, based upon the welfare reform legislation that was
passed several years ago, legal immigrants are barred, barred from
accessing most Federal means-tested public benefits for the first 5
years in the United States and are thereafter subject to further
limitations until they have worked 40 quarters in this country, which
is the equivalent of 10 years--10 years. Five years first, in terms of
being barred from any public benefit because you came in on the
affidavit of a family member who said: I am going to be responsible for
this individual, and then 10 years after, in terms of being subject to
further limitations of their necessity to have worked 40 quarters, 10
years.
Now, I have heard a lot about the rule of law. I am for the rule of
law. But how does the rule of law get promoted, 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
right to someone who did not follow the rules, who did not obey the
law, and who ultimately will receive a benefit superior, superior to
that U.S. citizen who is claiming their family member and waiting under
the law and pursuing the law?
In my mind, it sends out totally the wrong message. The message
should have been: No, no. Come across. Come however you can. Then, by
the way, you know we are going to give you a benefit. Do not stay out
there waiting. Yes, it breaks our heart that we are not together. Yes,
you are going to have to wait a period of time. But you know that is
the law. We are going to do this right.
Oh, no. Instead of honoring and rewarding that and sending a message
that when you observe the law there is a benefit, you know, we do the
opposite. We do the opposite under this bill. Our amendment very simply
says: A U.S. citizen claiming their family member, waiting under the
legal process, waiting to proceed, 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 of 2007.
Because here is the message we send under this bill: Break the law,
you get a benefit--January of 2007. Follow the law, follow the rule of
law, obey it, your right is snuffed out in May of 2005. So I think if
we want to send a message about the rule of law, what we want to do is
to ensure we put on an equal footing the rights of a U.S. citizen
claiming their family member, obeying the law, to give them the same
opportunity that those who have not. That is what our amendment is all
about.
Now, as we approach moving toward a vote on this amendment, I wish to
remind our colleagues about whose rights they are snuffing out. Rights
of individuals good enough to wear the uniform of the United States,
good enough to serve their country, good enough to fight for their
country but not good enough to observe their right to claim their
family member.
Under this bill, both U.S. citizens and U.S. legal permanent
residents' rights are snuffed out. These men in different branches of
the armed services of the United States, they were good enough to fight
for their country, but they were not good enough, under this bill, to
have their rights preserved to claim their family member.
That does not make sense to me. Now, I have heard about this killer
amendment--killer amendment. One of our colleagues has tried to
describe our amendment on family reunification as a killer amendment.
What is a killer amendment? A killer amendment is an amendment that is
proposed by a sponsor who does not want to see comprehensive
immigration reform pass the Senate.
Now, the ironic part of that is many who used that language last year
when I was in the Senate voting for comprehensive immigration reform,
that was used against me in my election last year. They were voting
against comprehensive immigration reform. Killer amendment? When did
family reunification--family reunification--strengthening of families,
preserving the rights of U.S. citizens, including those who wear the
uniform of the United States, when did that become a killer amendment?
Now, I have heard a lot about family values in my 15 years in
Congress. You know, when you want to move away from the human aspect,
when you want to forget, for example, the face of Marine LCpl Jose
Antonio Gutierrez, a legal permanent resident of the United States who
gave his life, the first soldier to die in Iraq, under this bill, had
he survived, you would have extinguished his right to claim his family.
He was good enough to die for his country, not good enough to have his
rights preserved. When you don't want to see the human faces, you
dehumanize it so you can deal with it abstractly. So what have we heard
about? We have heard about chain migration. We can treat it like an
inanimate object; we have to stop that chain migration.
This is much more than chain migration. This chain my colleagues so
abstractly refer to, the top of this chain is someone who is a mother
or a father. When did that become such a horrible thing? I thought we
wanted to strengthen families, honor our parents, honor their ability
to perform and to be strengthened. But that is chain migration. We
can't let a U.S. citizen be able to claim their family. No, that is
chain migration. We can't do that.
When did we decide our brothers and sisters are nonnuclear? But they
are part of the chain, brothers and sisters. Then our children--this is
a good one--if they are under the age of 21, they are part of our
nuclear family. If they are over the age of 21, they are no longer part
of our nuclear family, just a little part of this chain.
I have two children. One is 21; the other is 23. I have never for a
moment, because they changed from 20 to 21, believed they were not part
of my nuclear family. I don't view them as part of a chain. I don't
love them any less. I couldn't live without them any less. The mere
passage of a year, some numerical figure makes them part of a chain,
nonnuclear. I guess we can do away with our children. I guess we can do
without the right of U.S. citizens to claim their children. We can just
discard them. I guess when you become 21, you really don't matter
anymore. As a matter of fact, all of that family values stuff doesn't
matter anymore. Unless we adopt this amendment, that is what we are
talking about.
Imagine if we couldn't have such a set of circumstances be preserved
by
[[Page S7132]]
virtue of this amendment. I have shown some of these pictures before,
but as we move to the vote, I hope people understand what I am talking
about. Under the bill, family reunification that I believe is so
critical, we wouldn't have a lot of people in our country who have made
enormous contributions. Ultimately, we ended up thriving because of
their contributions. We ended up thriving on the contributions of a
Colin Powell whose parents, under this bill, would not have been
eligible to come to this country and, therefore, unlikely that he would
have been born here and had the opportunity to become chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff or Secretary of State. He has made a good
contribution to this country.
Right now in Iraq our leadership comes from GEN David Petraeus. The
reality is, under this bill his parents would have been unlikely to
come to this country, and he would not be a United States general and
leading the best efforts we can have in Iraq.
Under this bill, the inventor of the polio vaccine, Jonas Salk, would
not have made it to this country. Yet he saved the lives of millions
and millions of people here and across the world. Under this bill, at
least, America wouldn't have been the place in which electricity and
the light bulb would have been found. Thomas Edison, from my home State
of New Jersey, likely would not have made it because his parents
weren't rocket scientists.
The list goes on and on. We have a gentleman who did a great service
to our service men and women across the globe, Bob Hope. Under this
bill his parents wouldn't have made it, and we wouldn't have had an
incredible ambassador for our country and an incredible sponsor of
goodwill for the men and women who served us over decades around the
globe.
What do we say? This came out recently in one of the newspapers. What
are our priorities? Stopping terrorists, stopping drugs at the border?
No. Drugs or explosives? No. We are just checking to make sure you
don't take any loved ones with you.
Under this bill, it doesn't matter because even when you obey the law
and follow the rules, you ultimately have your right extinguished.
It seems to me we have our values wrong. It is not about chain
migration, not about just looking at the ability to say that family
reunification should not happen, especially when the burden is on the
family member who happens to be a U.S. citizen. I simply believe the
question before the Senate will be, are you willing to vote to
eliminate the right that exists today of a U.S. citizen who filed his
papers, the Government took his money, he obeyed the law, followed the
rules, you are going to take away his or her right? But you are going
to give a right to individuals who didn't follow the law and obey the
rules. I certainly don't believe that ultimately is in pursuit of the
rule of law.
There are many organizations that have joined us. I ask unanimous
consent to have this list printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Asian American
Justice Center,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2007.
Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, write to
urge you to vote yes on the Menendez-Hagel Amendment to
ensure fairness for U.S. citizens and their families. Without
this amendment, U.S. citizens will be punished for playing by
the rules and waiting in line to be reunited with their
family members.
The current immigration bill being considered by the Senate
contains a provision that would address the current family
backlog of people that have applied for lawful permanent
residence, but only for those who applied before May 1, 2005.
Applications that were filed by U.S. citizens to sponsor
their adult children or siblings after this cut-off date--an
estimated 833,000--would be thrown out. Not only does this
send the wrong message to people who are citizens and obey
the law, the government will be severely taxed with the
administrative cost of returning application fees for the
past two years.
Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) have
introduced an amendment, co-sponsored by Senators Daniel
Akaka (D-HI), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Christopher Dodd (D-
CT), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Frank
Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Barack Obama (D-IL), to the current
Senate bill that would correct this grave injustice by
changing the cut-off date for legal immigrant applicants from
May 1, 2005 to January 1, 2007--the same cut-off date that is
currently set for the legalization of undocumented
immigrants--and adding 110,000 green cards a year for a
meaningful backlog reduction so as to not lengthen the 8-year
deadline for clearing the adult children and sibling backlog.
By voting for the Menendez-Hagel Amendment, you will help
immigrants who have gone through the long and sometimes
arduous process of learning English and becoming citizens.
These Americans have filed applications and paid fees to the
U.S. government so that they can bring in their adult
children or siblings. They have made life choices based on
the very reasonable expectation that they would be eventually
reuniting with their family members. Our country can't tell
people who have been waiting patiently in line for visas that
we are now retroactively rewriting the rules and effectively
forcing them to start from scratch.
We urge you to vote yes on the Menendez-Hagel Amendment and
ensure our immigration system is fair for United States
citizens.
Very truly yours,
National Organizations: Asian American Justice Center;
Advocates for Children and Elders International;
American Friends Service Committee; American
Immigration Lawyers Association; Amerian-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee; Asian & Pacific Islander
American Health Forum; Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now; Cambodian American
National Conference; Church World Service, Immigration
and Refugee Program; Coalition for Comprehensive
Immigration Reform; Democracia Ahora; Dominican
American National Roundtable; Ethiopian Community
Development Council; Federation of Indo-American
Seniors' Association of North America; Friends
Committee on National Legislation; Hate Free Zone;
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; Hmong National
Development; Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project;
Immigrant Legal Resource Center; International
Immigration; Foundation Japanese American Citizens
League; Kurdish Human Rights Watch; Laotian American
National Alliance; Latin American Legal Defense and
Education Fund; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights;
Legal Momentum; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee
Service; Mennonite Central Committee, Washington
Office; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the
Good Shepherd; National Alliance to Nurture the Aged
and the Youth; National Asian Pacific Center on Aging;
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials Educational Fund; National Council of La
Raza; National Korean American Service & Education
Consortium; National Immigration Forum; National
Immigration Law Center; NETWORK, A National Catholic
Social Justice Lobby; Organization for Justice &
Equality; Organization of Chinese Americans; People For
the American Way; Sikh Council on Religion and
Education; Sojourners/Call to Renewal; Somali Family
Care Network; South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow;
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; Unitarian
Universalist Association of Congregations; United
Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society;
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; World Relief.
Local Organizations: Asian American Federation of New
York; Asian American Institute, Chicago, IL; Asian Law
Caucus, San Francisco, CA; Asian Pacific American Legal
Center of Southern California; CASA of Maryland; Causa,
Oregon; Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition; EI CENTRO
de Igualdad y Derechos, Albuquerque, NM; Filipino-
American Coalition of Florida; Filipino American
Political Alliance of Florida; Fresno
Interdenominational Refugee Ministry; Guru Gobind Singh
Foundation Sikh Center, Rockville, Maryland; Illinois
Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Iowa
Citizens for Community Improvement; Korean Resource
Center, Los Angeles, CA; Korean American Resource &
Cultural Center, Chicago, IL; La Casita: Servicios
Legales para inmigrantes, Trenton, NJ; Latin American
Community Center, Wilmington, DE; Massachusetts
Immigrant And Refugee Advocacy Coalition; National
Capital Immigrant Coalition; New Jersey Immigration
Policy Network; New York Immigration Coalition;
Northwest Federation of Community Organizations; OCA--
South Florida Chapter; Stone Soup Fresno; Tennessee
Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition; The Pyonghoa
Gospel Church, Flushing, NY; United Chinese Association
of Florida; YKASEC--Empowering the Korean American
Community, Flushing, NY.
Mr. MENENDEZ. There are 80 of them. I will not read them all, but I
want to give a sense of some who have moral authority behind them, as
it relates to saying the Senate should adopt this amendment: The Church
World Service; the Hebrew Immigrant Aids Society; the Lutheran
Immigration
[[Page S7133]]
and Refugee Service; the Mennonite Central Committee; NETWORK, a
National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; the Unitarian Universalist
Association of Congregations; the United Methodist Church; the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops; and a whole host of organizations that
are not religious in nature but clearly are advocates from all of the
different sectors of society: For example, the Asian American Justice
Center, the Asian and Pacific Islander American Health Forum, the
Federation of Indo-American Seniors' Association of North America, the
Friends Committee on National Legislation, the National Association of
Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Council of La
Raza, the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, to
mention a few. They all believe this Senate should be putting its votes
where its values are, into the reunification of families.
Finally, I know there will be an attempt to offer what we call a
side-by-side, something to try to produce a figleaf for those who don't
want to be seen as casting a vote against family reunification, a vote
against snuffing out the rights of U.S. citizens. And that figleaf
actually would do absolutely nothing. What it would do is guarantee the
underlying bill. It would guarantee that a U.S. citizen who obeyed the
law, followed the rules, did everything right, had their family member
waiting, it would guarantee that their right would be snuffed out. It
would guarantee that they would go to the back of the line, a line in
which there are people who didn't follow the law, obey the rules,
violated the law, and they will be in the back of the line with them.
That amendment that is going to be offered clearly is a figleaf. It
clearly is poorly constructed. It doesn't deal with the present
realities of undermining that right of a U.S. citizen. It does nothing
to preserve the right of those people who filed and who are now being
snuffed out, being cut out in terms of the rights of those U.S.
citizens because of the underlying bill.
There is only one way to make this right. There is only one way to
preserve family reunification. There is only one way to preserve the
rights of these individuals who wore the uniform of the United States,
who were good enough to wear the uniform, serve their country, and
should have the right, which this bill snuffs out, to claim family
members. There is only one way of making sure we don't turn this into
an abstract object of chain migration, but that we understand the core
values of family; that we understand a child who turns 21 is no less a
child you love dearly and want to be with and who doesn't stop being
part of your nuclear family because they magically turned 21 and are
now nonnuclear. That is what is at stake in this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez-Hagel, and others,
amendment so that, in fact, we can still stay within the ``grand
bargain'' but we can do what is right on family reunification.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Ms. Klobuchar are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and
ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. As we noted earlier, we are going to have a series of
votes at 6:45. I wanted to address the amendment which has been offered
by my friend, Senator Sessions from Alabama, which relates to the
earned-income tax credit.
I see the Senator from Alabama has just arrived, so I will be glad to
let him make his presentation and then respond. If that is what the
Senator would like to do, I will withhold.
Mr. SESSIONS. I think I am ready, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Amendment No. 1235
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for his
courtesy, and I would just like to make some general comments about the
earned-income tax credit and why I think this is important. I ask that
I be notified in 20 minutes if I have gone that far.
The earned-income tax credit is one of the major--the major, in
fact--transfer programs in the Federal Government. It is a payment of
monies, in reality. It doesn't work the way it was intended, but in
reality, it provides a substantial check every year to persons who are
low-wage workers. It is for people who are trying to do well but are
not making much money, so they give them a check to encourage work. I
have felt for some time--and maybe I will talk with Senator Kennedy one
day about it, and we might reach an agreement on this--I think it would
be much better if tax credit were paid along with your paycheck. It is
designed to increase--it is allowed, under the EITC, but we don't do it
that way. You file a return, and the next year, after you have
completed your year's work, they send you a large check. On average,
the recipient receives a benefit of almost $1,800 a year; that is, the
people who qualify receive that amount. Again, the people who qualify
are individuals who are working in lower wage jobs, which, in fact, are
the types of jobs most of the 12 million illegal aliens are doing. They
are working at low-wage jobs. Therefore, we can expect there will be a
disproportionate number of persons who will qualify for this tax
credit.
Now, the tax credit was designed to encourage Americans to work--
American citizens. When it started in the 1970s under President Nixon,
they thought there had to be some incentive so that you would get more
money by working than by drawing welfare, or else you would just stay
home and draw welfare. There still is a problem with that, in reality.
But this bill was supposed to incentivize work, and that is why it was
drafted the way it was and has continued to grow and become quite
substantial. But, again, it was designed to take care of American
citizens, our own people.
Now, we are into an immigration reform bill where we have 12 million
people here who came into our country illegally. They are being
considered for amnesty. They are going to be allowed to stay in this
country and be given that right. Maybe some didn't want it or didn't
expect it, but they will be given the right to stay here. But under
present law, because they are not legally here, they are certainly not
entitled to the earned-income tax credit. Unless they file fraudulent
documents and receive it fraudulently, they don't get an earned-income
tax credit.
So we say we are going to have a $1,000 fine that people must pay as
part of a punishment for being in the country illegally, and it is not
really amnesty because they pay a fine, but in reality, the fine can be
paid on the installment plan, and only $200 has to be paid the first
year when you apply for the Z visa. So under the bill, as I understand
it--I think there is little dispute about it--as soon as this bill
passes, everybody can come in and get a probationary legal status in
America, and then before long, they are entitled to apply for and
receive a Z visa that is good for 4 years. It can be renewed
indefinitely. At some point, they can apply, if they so choose, for
legal permanent residency.
What I want to tell my colleagues is that not only will we be
providing amnesty to the persons who came into our country illegally
for a $200 payment, we will be giving them--even for the temporary
probationary status and the
[[Page S7134]]
Z visa, prior to legal permanent residency, the earned-income tax
credit. I think that is quite a step. Indeed, you pay $200 for your
fine, and you file your tax return next year and get a $1,800 check
from Uncle Sam.
Don't be mistaken, the earned-income tax credit is for people who
don't pay income tax. It is a gift from Uncle Sam. It is meant to
encourage Americans to get out and work, not to encourage people to
come into our country illegally to gain this benefit. So I just would
say to my colleagues, this is an important principle.
According to the Congressional Budget Office--and they run the
numbers on this--it is the largest single benefit program and cost of
this bill in the first 10 years--not in the outyears; there are some
big costs that aren't being calculated. But in the first 10 years, this
is the largest direct single benefit.
Over the 2008 to 2017 period--
Ten years--
the Joint Tax Committee estimates that S.A. 1150 would
increase outlays for refundable tax credits by about $13
billion, the largest direct spending effect of the
legislation. Enacting 1150 would increase the amount of
refundable tax credits mainly by increasing the number of
resident aliens for income tax purposes.
In other words, it would increase the number of people eligible.
Resident aliens are taxed in the same manner as U.S.
citizens and thus could qualify for the refundable tax
credit.
They are taxed, but they are not going to be paying high taxes
because many of them are lower income people, but they will get the tax
credit.
So my amendment would reduce the bill's direct spending cost, the
cost to the American taxpayer. Who pays the big check they get every
year? Who pays the check they get every year? They are not paying it.
It is the taxpayers, the American taxpayers. It is an additional reward
on top of the amnesty that is provided. So my amendment would reduce
the estimated cost of this legislation by nearly half, No. 1, and it is
right, and it is fair.
Now, last year, my amendment--which I believed was justified, but
this Congress didn't agree--said you would not receive the earned-
income tax credit until you became a citizen. Why not? How is an
illegal alien able to come here, not expecting the earned-income tax
credit, and then be rewarded with it by our government? That never made
sense to me.
But in this legislation--because I think it is important, and we can
make a big difference here--in this legislation I have offered, it
would simply say that during the time you have a probationary visa or a
Z visa up until the time you become a legal permanent resident, you
wouldn't get the earned-income tax credit. How much simpler is it than
that?
I hope my colleagues will see that this is a perfectly logical
amendment, and I would suggest it reflects on our mindset, our approach
to this entire process, if we are not able to draw this kind of line as
we go through passing--or attempting to pass--this historic piece of
legislation. I really think we should give thought to that and ask
ourselves what right does somebody who came into our country illegally,
who has been here maybe for a number of years, expect to receive this
benefit, where we say: OK, we are just going to give up; we are not
going to make you go home; we will let you stay; you can have amnesty.
By the way, you start receiving the earned-income tax credit of $2,000.
How much sense does that make? I don't think that is good public
policy. It raises questions about how serious we are about defining our
immigration system in a way that works, that has bright lines, and
carries out a logical policy. But I understand that people are
determined to see that this goes forward.
Now, Senator Reid has offered an amendment that is going to be a
side-by-side. This amendment is very short, and basically all the
amendment says is--I don't have it before me. Our majority leader, our
Democratic majority leader, is offering an amendment that says: Well,
we will comply with all the current laws of the IRS, and you don't get
the earned-income tax credit if you are illegal. Well, of course. That
means zero--nothing. I have to tell my colleagues, I am amazed at that
amendment, unless I have missed something entirely, because that is
what it is all about. They won't be illegal when they are given the
probationary status or the Z visa status. They become legal and would
get it. I was going to meet with some of the White House people to
discuss this issue. I don't think they understood it that way, and I am
not sure the President understood that this was actually going to
happen under the legislation. But if this bill becomes law, they would
get it.
So you say: Well, maybe they wouldn't get it. Well, if they don't get
it, why wouldn't you vote for my amendment, which quite plainly assures
that they don't get it? Follow me?
So I don't understand this cover amendment. It is not even a fig
leaf, I say to my colleagues. I don't think you are going to be able to
hide behind the Reid amendment because it is not going to do anything
but guarantee that persons who are here and are given this amnesty will
pay $200 and then they will get to draw nearly $2,000 a year under the
earned-income tax credit.
The amendment being offered by Senator Reid makes no sense to me.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't think so. I would be delighted to
hear what is in play. It is what you call a cover amendment. So what I
say to my colleagues is, let's get realistic about what we are doing.
Let's understand the cost this legislation is going to have. The
Congressional Budget Office has found in their report--although it was
written so that it is a little hard to find, but it is perfectly
plain--the bill, over 10 years, will cost the American taxpayers $32
billion. A substantial chunk of that amount is the earned-income tax
credit. They say the earned-income tax credit is for children. It is
not for children, it is for American workers. You may get more if you
have children, but it is not for children, it is for American workers.
I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arizona on the
Senate floor. I was going to respond at some time to the Senator from
Alabama. I am glad to wait until the Senator from Arizona is finished.
Amendment No. 1150
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, since
it is important that, prior to a meeting we have at 5:30, to speak to
an amendment offered by Senator Menendez.
I want to be clear that we have a side-by-side amendment that we will
also be voting on, which I think goes to the heart of what Senator
Menendez is trying to get at here, but it does so in a way that will
not upset the bipartisan consensus that has been worked out on the
legislation.
I think the Menendez amendment has been discussed in the past. It is
an amendment that would, in significant ways, change the basic
agreement that has been made by some of the Senators. Therefore, it
would be very problematic were it to pass. There is a budget point of
order against the Menendez amendment, and that point of order will be
raised. Because of the extra cost that would be imposed by additional
immigrants being permitted to come into the country over time, in fact,
I think there is more than one budget point of order because of those
increased costs. The general proposition is that some have said the
bill is not family friendly and that we need to do more for families. I
want to try to dispel that, Mr. President.
We start out with the proposition that somewhere between 12 million
and who knows how many million illegal immigrants who are in the United
States, for the most part, are going to be able to stay. If everything
that can be expected of them is accomplished, they have the ability to
apply for a green card and eventually potentially become citizens of
the United States of America. That is a tremendous benefit for people
who came illegally.
One of the reasons some of us have been willing to accommodate that
is people have come here with families or have created families here,
and we do not want to disrupt those families.
Secondly, there are family visas that historically have been issued
by the United States. This bill doesn't in any way affect the ability
of any legal permanent resident or citizen to bring
[[Page S7135]]
into the United States their spouse or minor children. That is the so-
called nuclear family.
In addition, 40,000 parents per year can be brought into the United
States, and there are extraordinarily liberal visitations for parents
beyond that 40,000 number. We have said the so-called nonnuclear
family--the extended family--in the future is going to compete the same
as workers are going to compete, so that we can get in balance with
some of our competitors in the global economy, where more of the visas
are reserved for work purposes and fewer for family purposes. But in
the meantime, some 4 million people, roughly, who have applied for a
family visa--extended or nonnuclear family--are going to be allowed to
immigrate to the United States, and instead of taking 30 or 40 years,
in some cases, it is going to all happen within an 8-year period of
time. That is extraordinarily helpful to families and family
reunification.
Now, it is true, if somebody has come here illegally and their family
is still outside the country, we don't permit that family to come. But
the object, obviously, is to try to encourage that individual to go
back with his family. That would be family reunification.
But the problem the Menendez amendment poses is, instead of allowing
those people who have applied for visas for extended families who have
a reasonable expectation to come to the United States, he would change
the date that measures their eligibility in such a way as to allow a
lot of people--thousands, hundreds of thousands, actually--to immigrate
to the United States who, today, under current law, have no reasonable
expectation they would ever make it to the United States. What we have
tried to do is to be fair and say, if you have a reasonable expectation
you will be permitted to immigrate to the United States, we will allow
you to come in, and we will do it within a very short period of time--8
years, or perhaps less than that period of time, as opposed to the
perhaps 20 or 30 years it may have otherwise taken. If you didn't have
a reasonable expectation to get in, then you are not going to come.
The reason the date was drawn where it was in May 2005 is that
represented a compromise. I believe the original date was March or July
of 2004--the time when people who were in line but had no reasonable
expectation--that their application was going to be processed and were
notified by the U.S. Government. Basically, the Government said: For
the time, we are not going to be processing these numbers anymore
because the backlog is too long. The backlog numbers are truly
astounding. There are people in Mexico, for example, who have no
reasonable expectation of getting here. For example, if you are the
brother or sister of a U.S. citizen, and if you are a Mexican national
and you recently filed to become a legal permanent resident of the
United States, you have an expected wait of about 80 years. So even if
you are 21 years of age, at the time when you can expect to get here
you would be 101 years of age. That is not a reasonable expectation you
will be allowed into the United States.
I went to Senator Menendez and said: I think you have a point because
we have drawn an arbitrary deadline. Remember, the date at which they
were told we were no longer going to be processing, temporarily, these
applications was in 2004. But in order to be more liberal, we moved the
date to May 2005. His argument was, there may be some people who still
had an expectation because they filed last year, and maybe they had an
expectation they could make it.
I said: You know, there may be some such people, so let's take a look
at it and see if we can redo this so everybody who had a reasonable
expectation they could get here will be allowed to be here, no matter
when they applied--whether it was 2 years ago, last year, 2 months ago,
or 10 or 12 years ago--if they had a reasonable expectation of getting
in.
We have crafted an amendment that I offered to Senator Menendez, but
he preferred to go forward with his amendment. But the side-by-side
that I will be proposing is an amendment that stretches the date out to
2027. It says: If you had a reasonable expectation, based upon your
category of immigration, the country you are from, the lines that
currently exist with that country, if you had a reasonable expectation
within the next 20 years you could have made it into the United States,
then you get to come in under a family visa. That is extraordinarily
liberal--everybody who really had an expectation that they could make
it. Like I said, if you are this Mexican national, and you are the
brother of an American citizen, and you were 21 years of age when you
applied, you would be over 100 years old today. That is not a
reasonable expectation. So you would not be permitted to come into the
United States. You never had a reasonable expectation that you could
make it.
The effect of my amendment and the Menendez amendment is almost
identical in terms of the number of people who would be allowed to come
to the United States. There is only a 3,000 difference out of about
600,000 people. So we are not reducing the number of people. We are
making it accurate as to who can actually come.
There is also a general notion that somehow we are being unfair to
families. As Senator Kennedy has frequently pointed out, after this
legislation is passed, for a period of 8 years, the total family
percentage coming into the United States will be 74 percent. And you
add another 15 percent for humanitarian visas, and there is only 11
left for the employment visas. Today, 65 percent are family visas. In
subsequent years, families will still be the majority of immigrants to
the United States--51 percent. Then you add to that another 17 percent
for asylum seekers and other humanitarian visas; 17 percent of the
total is a very humane number for the United States. We can still be
very proud of our tradition of allowing the poor, hungry, and
downtrodden to come to this country, and we will still have a majority
of family-based visas in this country.
Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KYL. Yes.
Mr. GRAHAM. For those who are worried about this, on the issue of
families, you should be worried about this. Is it not true that in this
bill, in terms of family reunification, the way we have accomplished or
dealt with the bill, families will be reunified decades earlier, and
those who are waiting to join their families under this bill--those who
have done it right--will be together no later than 8 years; is that
correct?
Mr. KYL. That is exactly correct. Instead of waiting 20, 30 years,
they will have to wait no longer than 8 years.
Mr. GRAHAM. So if you want to be the person who keeps families apart,
bring this bill down. I assure families will not be reunified under the
current system like they are here, that we will have a dramatic
increase in green cards to get these families reunited. We go up to 74
percent. If you want to keep families apart, bring this bill down and
let the current system survive.
Secondly, when it comes to families, there are 12 million people here
illegally. Is it not true that their families, under this bill--if they
will do the right thing--will never live in fear again?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to me, that is one of the main features of
the bill. Today, we have people who are being exploited, people against
whom crimes are being committed, but they are afraid to report it to
the law enforcement authorities. They are not being paid adequate wages
and their working conditions are poor. Frankly, they are being taken
advantage of. As long as they are in this gray status, that will
continue.
This bill offers them immediately an opportunity to begin a process
by which they are playing by the rules and, as a result of that, they
can have the freedom and the assurance of being protected by the laws
of the United States.
Mr. GRAHAM. To my good friend from Arizona, I say this: If you are
concerned about the 12 million people who are living in fear, subject
to exploitation, then this is the best chance you will ever have in my
political lifetime to fix it. If you want to bring this bill down, the
one thing I can assure you is that the 12 million, or however many
there may be, will not only live in fear, they are going to live in
more fear because we have stirred up a hornets nest in this country.
[[Page S7136]]
I argue, if you care about people who have families not being afraid
anymore, if they get themselves right with the law, help us pass this
bill. In the future, after everybody has been accommodated who has a
reasonable expectation, we are going to allow families to be part of
the new immigration system.
Could the Senator tell me again, in the future, what percentage of
visas will be given to families?
Mr. KYL. The answer I give the Senator is that family visas alone are
51 percent--a majority--and another 17 percent is humanitarian.
Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator acknowledge that is twice the family
component of other nations with whom we are competing?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, that is almost exactly right. I know in the
case of--in fact, I will give you the exact number. In Canada, it is 24
percent. If we have 51 percent, obviously, that is close to twice that
number. In Australia, it is 27 percent. And, again, if we are at 51
percent in the future, that is almost exactly twice. But remember, that
is only after 8 years. For the next 8 years, it is 74 percent because
of what the Senator from South Carolina was pointing out.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the bottom line, I say to my good friend
from Arizona, is we would have no bill without him. He stepped to the
plate and said I am willing to look at the 12 million anew; I don't
believe we are going to deport them, and I don't believe we are going
to put them in jail; So I am going to give them a chance to identify
themselves, come out of the shadows and do things that will make them
valuable to our country and will be fair and humane.
We have accomplished that. We couldn't do it last year. We are going
to reunite families who have been waiting for decades to get into this
country. We are going to expedite family reunions in an 8-year period
for some people because they would not live long enough to get back
with their families.
In the future, we are going to have a new system. There is going to
be a strong family component, but I make no apologies about this, in
the future we are going to have immigration based on the global economy
and merit. We need to start looking at where we are in the world and
making sure people come into our country under a merit-based system.
Neither one of my parents graduated high school. There is a way forward
for the semiskilled and low-skilled workers to come into our country in
the future. But the family component in the future will be spouses and
minor children, freeing up thousands of green cards for merit-based
employment. They are not going to bring in their adult children unless
they have a way to get in on their own. They are not going to bring in
their third cousin. Nobody else does that. They are going to come in as
a nuclear family, and we are going to do it based on merit, and merit
is not a degree.
Under this bill, if you come in with a strong back and a strong heart
and a desire to get ahead, you get points for getting a GED, you get
points for an apprenticeship, you get points for doing the things that
make you a better person. So I reject completely the idea that the
merit-based system excludes hard-working people.
I end with this one thought. If we don't get it right now and correct
the flaws in our system which led to the 12 million which will make us
globally noncompetitive, then who will? When will they do it? There are
a million reasons to say no to something this hard, there are 12
million reasons to say yes, and there are many reasons in the future to
say yes because our country cannot survive with a broken immigration
system that makes us noncompetitive.
This is a national security issue. This is a global economic issue.
Now is the time to understand we will never have a perfect bill but to
do something that will be good for America.
I thank my good friend, Jon Kyl, and Senator Kennedy for getting us
this far.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate that from the Senator from South
Carolina.
Let me make one final point. I know Senator Kennedy wishes to speak.
It was not easy for some people to agree to allow at least 12 million
immigrants who came to this country illegally to stay here and
eventually become citizens. That was not easy. One of the bases upon
which we were able to do that was to respond to an argument that had
frequently been made: Why should we let all those people, is the way it
is described, become U.S. citizens and then chain migrate all their
family--their uncles, cousins, grandparents, and so on? The answer to
that question is we probably shouldn't. So that was ended in this
legislation. That is what was stopped. That is part of the agreement
that was reached, the consensus that was reached.
The adoption of the Menendez amendment would undo that. You can
imagine how someone like me feels. I have taken a lot of heat for
agreeing that the people who are here illegally should stay here, but I
knew one of the reasons that was more palatable was because we had at
least stopped the chain migration that would occur for anybody
subsequently in the future, after we cleared the backlog of people who
already applied.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield?
Mr. KYL. Yes, I will be happy to yield. I was going to conclude and
turn to Senator Kennedy. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. MENENDEZ. One point. Remember how the Senator from Arizona said
how all ``those people'' would be able to claim their families. The
Menendez amendment has nothing to do with ``those people.'' The
Menendez amendment has everything to do with U.S. citizens today who
have a right under the law. So I hope we do not confuse both of those.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Jersey that
what he said, as far as he said it, is, of course, exactly correct.
What I was talking about was the tradeoff that existed between the
accommodation to the 12 million people and--by the way, I don't use
that phrase ``those people.'' I hope the Senator understands that I was
referring to the criticism of those who say we shouldn't allow the
illegal immigrants in the country, especially if we chain migrate their
families. We ended the chain migration.
We had to draw a time when applicants would be able to apply and
their applications would be considered. We had it at one point. We
agreed to move that date to accommodate the people on the Democratic
side of the aisle. The Menendez amendment would move it to January 1 of
this year, bringing in, I think, a total of well over 800,000 people.
That, obviously, would undo the rather delicate balance of agreements
that was reached that deals with this subject.
Recognizing, however, we wanted to make sure anybody who had a
reasonable expectation of being able to immigrate should be able to do
so, we have prepared an amendment that would, in fact, allow anybody
with a reasonable expectation to be able to immigrate here. We put the
date way back to 2027, and we say that if you could have reasonably
expected to get here by 2027, you are in and you are in within an 8-
year period from now.
I think that is very fair. The person who is excluded under our
proposal is the person who, as I said, is the sibling of a Mexican
national who is a sibling of a U.S. citizen who might be 101 years old
when he gets to the United States of America. That is not a reasonable
expectation.
I think our approach is reasonable. It is consistent with the
underlying agreement we reached. I regret to say--and I appreciate the
Senator from New Jersey has every right to raise a budget point of
order on the underlying bill--we fully expected there would be points
of order at the conclusion presumably of the consideration of the bill
and we would have to vote on those. Obviously, it is a 60-vote point of
order. We expected to have 60 people who would support the legislation,
and we believe that to be the case. But if the Senator wants to bring
the bill down, as the Senator from South Carolina said, by raising an
amendment such as that which has been proposed or at this time trying
to conclude the budget point of order, I don't think that is the best
way forward.
As the Senator from South Carolina said, we have one good chance to
get legislation passed. I don't think we want to blow that chance. Now
is our time. We were sent here to do difficult
[[Page S7137]]
jobs. I hope, in the bipartisan spirit that has so far characterized
our debate, we can move forward and continue to keep this bill as
literally a beacon of hope for a lot of people who are counting on us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Vermont is
looking for some time to speak. I believe there is 30 minutes I have
remaining; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 30 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, wants time.
I yield 10 minutes to Senator Lieberman. I will use probably 6 or 7
minutes. I will be more than glad to give 10 minutes to the Senator
from Vermont if not, we will try and extend that if we can.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I might interrupt the Senator for a
question. Would it be possible also to make sure Senator Domenici will
be able to speak after the Senator from Vermont?
Mr. KENNEDY. I will take 5 minutes of the 30 minutes; Senator
Domenici can have 5 minutes; 10 minutes to the Senator from
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman; and 10 minutes to the Senator from Vermont,
Mr. Sanders. I think that takes up 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent
that another minute be given to each of us, 33 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1234
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will be brief in response to the
Sessions amendment. We are talking about the earned-income tax credit.
That was developed in the 1970s. Why was the earned-income tax credit
developed? Because of the increased number of children living in
poverty.
We have, as this chart shows, in the United States more children who
live in poverty than any other country in the world. This amendment
would say to legal immigrants that you are not eligible for the earned-
income tax credit that benefits children.
If we look at the report from the CRS, it shows that over 98 percent
of the earned-income tax credit goes to families with children. That
was its purpose, that is where it is focused, that was the reason for
it, and this is the need.
Why in the world would we want to take benefits away from needy
children? Who are the workers of the earned-income tax credit? Their
average income is less than $20,000 a year. This is phased out at about
$30,000 to $33,000 a year. This is the low-income individuals who are,
what? Are they on welfare or are they out working? They are working.
They have children. They are legal. Why take the benefits away from the
children, the neediest children, most of whom are living in poverty?
We don't take the earned-income tax credit away from people who go to
jail and commit murder. We don't take away the earned-income tax credit
from people who have defrauded the Government. We don't take the earned
tax credit away from burglars, child molesters, and the rest of the
individuals who commit crimes. But this amendment wants to take it from
one particular group and that is legal workers.
Who are those legal workers? They are trying to provide for their
families, pay the penalties, show that they are working, and go to the
end of the line. Many of these children are American children. They are
not undocumented. They are American children because they were born
here.
I find it difficult to understand, when we are talking about
individuals who are working, who want to work, will work, are trying to
make a better future for themselves and their families and particularly
for their children, why they should be the only class of working people
in the United States who ought to be penalized. That is what the
Sessions amendment would do. That is wrong and it is not fair and it
should not be accepted.
Mr. President, I yield the time as I have indicated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for yielding me
time.
As I think we all know, this is a long and complicated bill. An
important part of this bill deals with illegal immigration--how do we
make sure we stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country; how
do we finally begin to deal with employers who are knowingly hiring
illegal immigrants; what do we do with 12 million people who are in
this country who, in my view, we are not going to simply, in the middle
of the night, throw out of this country. These are difficult and
important issues.
On those issues I am in general agreement with the thrust of this
legislation. But, Mr. President, I wish to tell you there are areas in
this bill where I have strong disagreement, and one is the issue of
legal immigration, what we are doing in terms of bringing people into
this country who, in my view, will end up lowering wages for American
workers right now.
Senator Kennedy a moment ago made a very important point. He talked
about the truth that in our country today we have the highest rate of
child poverty of any major country on Earth. That is a national
disgrace. But on top of that, we have the highest rate of poverty of
any major country on Earth. In fact, since President Bush has been in
office, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty.
Today, in our country, as many people know, the middle class is
shrinking. Millions of American workers are working longer hours for
lower wages. In my State of Vermont, it is not uncommon for people to
work two jobs, even three jobs, to make enough income to pay their
bills. According to a recent Pew-Brookings Institute study, men in
their 30s earned, on average, 12 percent less in 2004 than their
fathers did in 1974, after adjusting for inflation. In other words, in
America, we are moving in the wrong direction. Our standard of living,
in many ways, is going down. If we don't reverse trends, our kids will
have a lower standard of living than we have.
Now, in the midst of all of that, we are finding many large
corporations, both those who employ skilled workers--professional
workers--and those who employ low-wage workers, that are coming to this
body and are saying, my goodness, yes, we are outsourcing millions of
decent-paying jobs; yes, we have opposed vigorously raising the minimum
wage; yes, we have done everything we can to make sure workers can't
form unions, but what we want to do now, because we love the American
people so much and we are so concerned about the American worker, what
we want to do now is bring millions of new workers into this country,
both low-wage workers and professional workers.
The argument there is Americans don't want to do the work. They say:
We can't find American workers to do the work. That is a crock, in many
instances. It is not true. One of the groups that has come to Congress
to tell us how much they are concerned about the need to find workers
because they can't find Americans to do the jobs is our old friends at
Wal-Mart.
As many Americans know, Wal-Mart pays low wages. They often hire
people for 30 hours a week rather than 40 hours a week, and they
provide minimal health care benefits. Yet Wal-Mart has come in and
said: Well, we can't find the workers. Bring us in more low-wage
workers.
Well, guess what. Two years ago, when Wal-Mart announced the opening
of a new store in Oakland, CA, guess how many people showed up for that
job in Oakland, CA, at a Wal-Mart. Eleven thousand people showed up--
11,000 people showed up in Oakland--filled out applications for a job
when only 400 jobs were available. Eleven thousand people for 400 jobs.
Wal-Mart says they need more low-wage workers coming in from around
the world because they can't find workers. Well, that was a couple of
years ago. So you might say: Well, that doesn't happen today. In
January of 2006, when Wal-Mart announced the opening of a store in
Evergreen Park, just outside of Chicago, in your home State, Mr.
President, 24,500 people applied for 2,325 jobs. Yet Wal-Mart and their
friends are coming in here saying we can't find Americans who want to
work.
Let us be clear. Wal-Mart does not provide good wages, does not
provide good benefits, does not provide good health care, yet we are
finding many people who want to do that because
[[Page S7138]]
people in this country are desperate, because people in this country
want to work at almost any job.
Some of the people at the other end of the economic spectrum, the
people who are hiring professionals, make the same argument. There are
organizations out there, including companies such as Motorola, Dell,
IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Boeing, that say the same thing: We can't
find professionals to do the jobs. I find it interesting that while
these companies claim they can't find workers in the United States,
some of these very same companies have recently announced major layoffs
of thousands of American workers.
Let me repeat that. These companies are saying we desperately need to
bring workers from other countries into America because we can't find
people in the United States to do these skilled jobs. Yet, at the same
time, they are laying off tens of thousands of American workers.
Let me give a few examples. A few days ago, the Los Angeles Times
reported Dell would be eliminating 10 percent of its workforce,
slashing 8,800 jobs. Dell is part of the group saying we need to bring
more professionals into America. Meanwhile, as Dell has eliminated
decent-paying jobs in the U.S., it applied for nearly 400 H-1B visas
last year.
But Dell is not alone. On May 31, the Financial Times reported
Motorola would be cutting 4,000 jobs on top of an earlier 3,500-job
reduction designed to generate savings of some $400 million. This is
nothing new. Motorola has cut jobs in this country year after year
after year. But guess what. Motorola, part of a group saying they can't
find American workers, recently received 760 H-1B visas. That was last
year.
On May 30, Reuters reported IBM would be laying off more than 1,500
American workers, bringing total layoffs to that company of 3,700 last
year. In April, CBS MarketWatch reported Citigroup announced it would
be laying off 17,000 workers, yet Citigroup received over 330 H-1B
visas.
Here is the point, and this is not a complicated point. Many of the
largest corporations in this country are supporting this legislation.
And you know why? It is not because they are staying up late at night
worrying about some Mexican kid in Detroit or Chicago and what will be
the future of that kid. They are not worrying about that. What they
want to see is a continued influx into this country of cheap labor.
They are not content with outsourcing millions of good-paying jobs.
They are not content with fighting against working people who want to
form unions. They are not content with their opposition, successful
until recently, of keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour for 10
years. That is not good enough. Now they are saying: Gee, we can't move
Wal-Mart from America to China, we can't move hotels to China, we can't
move restaurants to China, so what is the best way to continue keeping
wages low for those workers?
When I was a kid, I worked in a hotel. I was a busboy. There is
nothing wrong with that job. Millions of people do that job. I resent
very much the fact that many of these large corporations are continuing
their war against the middle class and against the American worker. I
think it is high time the Senate begins to stand up for the American
worker rather than the large multinational corporations who have so
much sway over what we do in this body. I would hope before an
immigration bill is passed, it will respect the rights of American
workers, both low-wage workers and professional workers, and say that
is our major responsibility, to make sure our kids----
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute to yield to my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. My question, I guess, Mr. President, would be something
like this: Perhaps it could be true that the large number of job
applications received by Wal-Mart facilities is because even though
Wal-Mart does not pay great wages, they do have health care benefits
and job security, as opposed to construction work. Would the Senator
agree that if businesses raised wages at the construction sites, if
they had jobs that had a more permanent status to them, and actually
offered a retirement plan and health care benefits, they might get more
people willing to work at the construction sites?
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. President, the Senator makes an
important point, and that is we have all been educated that economics
is about supply and demand. If you don't get the workers you want, you
raise wages and you raise benefits. You don't simply open the door and
bring in other workers at low wages.
The Senator makes an important point.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I came to the floor tonight for a few
moments to talk about the significance of the bill that is before us
and the work that has been done by Senators and a couple of Cabinet
members and great staff.
The American people have been telling us for many years that we are
confronted with a problem that is apt to destroy our land, destroy our
country, destroy our values, and that problem is that we have an
inability to control our borders. We have illegal immigrants who come
across our borders by the thousands who are, for the most part,
interested in jobs. But after some of them get here and their jobs are
procured, there are other things they bring with them or do here that
make the American people very worried about our future.
I, for one, as a Senator of long standing, grow more worried every
year as to whether we will ever be able to control our borders and thus
control who comes in and who goes out so that we know who they are. We
have heard the American people tell us this is our biggest
responsibility; that if we don't secure our borders, something bad is
going to happen to our country. We have heard them tell us of the
horror stories that happen when some of these immigrants come here
without authority, without the law on their side; they sneak in, in the
dark of the night, or however they have been able to come, and then
they form gangs. We have heard about how they have scared our people,
hurt them, killed them, and how they fight amongst each other. Of
course, I am not talking about all of them. I am saying the American
people see this and say to us, can't you ever control our borders?
I want to say I think a terrific job has been done with this bill. It
is not finished--there are a few more amendments that need to be
considered and some time taken to review the final bill--but I believe
the bipartisan group that wrote this bill under the leadership of
Senator Jon Kyl on the Republican side and Senator Ted Kennedy on the
other side, working with their best staff for months, and then both day
and night for the last 2 months, have put together a piece of
legislation that shows how you can work out practical differences if in
fact your goal is significant and you forget about politics, you forget
about party, and you begin to write a law you can be proud of.
I think we are close to that. I don't think you get there very often.
Rarely do you get the opportunity to be part of such a law as a
Senator. So for those who are going to vote against this bill, tonight
they are saying to themselves, I think I am going to vote against it, I
ask you and urge you to think of when you are going to be given an
opportunity to vote on a bill, a piece of legislation that is more
important than this. If we don't do it now, with your vote, when will
we do it?
If for some reason this bill fails, those who cause it to fail have
to ask themselves, when will we get a bill we can rely on, that we can
trust, which is put together by good, practical people who resolved
issues in a practical manner by working on the issues that are now
confronting us, which are that our borders are wide open and we have no
control over what is happening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S7139]]
Mr. DOMENICI. I am certain if, after we pass legislation such as
this, we provide the resources that are needed--and that is very
important, and I think we are providing a means and a manner for
resources to go to the border in this bill--and, secondly, if we
annually make sure the resources and manpower are there to implement
this law--because it will require much by way of manpower, much by way
of technology--if we give this law that, we will return to say this was
a historic event. Indeed, we will have done something good for America
and good for our children. Something good for the families of existing
immigrants, good for immigrants who are coming in the future and their
families, who will also be permitted. We will also look for merit in
those who are coming to help America, which is competing in a very
difficult world.
I am very proud to be on the side of those who are trying to maintain
the measure intact, or practically intact, because you can't do much
better than was done by this hard-working bipartisan group. The more
you try to change it, the more you risk losing it. When you end up
thinking what did you lose it for, you end up really wondering whether
you did right for your country.
I urge that we move as fast as we can, giving Senators an
opportunity, those who need it, and, yes, saying we are going to pass
it soon--I don't know about tomorrow or the next day but certainly send
to our leader a message that if you will give us an opportunity to call
up a few more amendments, it will get accomplished.
I look forward to more debate, more amendments.
Mr. MENENDEZ addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who yields to the Senator? If
no Senator yields time, then the time will be divided equally between
both sides.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent that it be equally charged.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 1345
Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, I ask that at the conclusion of the
consented time and the stacked votes, I be recognized to call up my
amendment No. 1345 and that after 2 minutes of consideration, the
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Who yields time to the Senator? At this time, the Senator from
Alabama controls 17 minutes and the Senator from Texas 12.
Mr. SESSIONS. Is there any other time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not at this time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to yield to the Senator from North
Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, I am very concerned that amendments to
this bill are being limited because there are many issues that deserve
attention in this debate. For instance, in my home State of North
Carolina, we have had a number of fatal automobile accidents caused by
an intoxicated person who was in the United States illegally. Sadly,
just yesterday morning on Interstate 40 near Raleigh, a man was killed
on his way to work when his vehicle was struck by an SUV barreling
across the median. The SUV driver, according to initial news reports,
is an illegal alien, who now faces a number of criminal charges,
including DWI.
In several of these incidents, the illegal alien driver has a record
of DWI, sometimes repeated offenses, but has been caught and released.
Just this past March, in Johnston County, NC, a 9-year-old boy and his
father lost their lives in an accident caused by an intoxicated driver
who had been convicted twice of drunken driving and had an outstanding
warrant stemming from a probation violation--and he was in the United
States illegally. Another tragic case was the death of Scott Gardner, a
Gaston County school teacher, who was killed in 2005 by a drunk
driver--a driver who was an illegal alien with five previous DWI
charges. I want to thank my colleague Richard Burr who introduced the
Scott Gardner Act to deal with this serious issue, and on the House
side, my good friend Sue Myrick has been a true leader on this front.
I hear from many North Carolinians who ask me what is Washington
doing to stop this from happening. When are we going to take action to
make our communities safer.
Such senseless tragedies are not unique to North Carolina. Automobile
accidents caused by intoxicated illegal aliens are occurring around the
Nation--too often killing innocent people who are just going about
their daily lives, or leaving the victims with crippling, disabling
injuries.
It is a privilege, not a right, for an immigrant to receive legal
status to live in the United States of America. My amendment would
ensure that this privilege is not granted to an illegal alien with a
DWI conviction.
No question, our DWI laws should be vigorously enforced, regardless
of the offender's immigration or citizenship status.
My amendment addresses an all too prevalent problem and should be
considered. There are a number of other amendments that deserve a place
in this debate. The bill we are considering would have enormous
ramifications for nearly every American, as well as those who want to
work in this country or become American citizens. We must do our due
diligence and not rush this bill through. The majority in this body
must not stifle the voice of the minority Members. More amendments must
be considered.
I yield back my remaining time to Senator Sessions, the Republican
manager.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Dole for her insight, sharing that
important information, and for offering an amendment and demonstrating
once again that good amendments dealing with very important issues are
not being allowed to be considered. This is not a free and open debate.
This is not a free opportunity to amend. The majority leader is
controlling his machinery, the train is moving down the track, and very
few amendments are being approved.
I have offered and filed quite a number. I have only gotten two
amendments, and I said at the beginning that only one would be voted
on. We are having the first vote on one I have offered.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent--I see my colleague, Senator
Kennedy, here--I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set
aside and I be allowed to call up amendment No. 1253.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. On behalf of Senator Kennedy, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we have quite a number of other
amendments. That is what we are going to hear when we offer any of them
because we now have a cloture motion filed. If cloture is obtained and
you don't have an amendment pending, you can't get a vote on it. We
know what the game is, and it is not a free, open debate on one of the
most important bills in the time that I have been in the Senate that we
are considering today.
I would like to share a few more thoughts. Maybe I will have a few
minutes left for Senator Lieberman. I know he wants more time than he
has gotten so far. Senator Kennedy is maneuvering for me to give him
some of my time and maybe I will be able to do that.
The earned-income tax credit will not be taken away from people who
are illegally in the country today if my amendment is passed. The
earned-income tax credit is a credit given to working individuals who
have lower incomes to encourage people to work. That is what it is all
about. It is for Americans and people legally here.
So what I propose is that we do not provide this, on average, almost
$2,000-per-year paycheck from the U.S. Government, to people who came
into the
[[Page S7140]]
country illegally and were given this probationary card status through
their Z card status.
I am not offering an amendment to take the earned-income tax credit
away after they become legal permanent residents. So if they become a
legal permanent resident, they would be entitled to have the earned-
income tax credit.
Last year I offered an amendment that said that you would not get the
earned-income tax credit until you became an actual citizen. That was
voted down. Why? I still am not sure. I still don't think that was a
good vote. But at least we ought not to give this credit to someone who
was here illegally a few days ago, and now we give them some sort of
probationary status and they immediately start getting paychecks from
the Federal Government.
I don't think that is what this system is about. People would be
given a great thing. They would be given amnesty, they would be able to
stay in the country legally, continue to work, and any family gets to
stay with them. All of this is in this piece of legislation.
A lot of people think that is too generous, but that is what this
legislation does. The next question is: What else do they obtain by
virtue of having this legal status bestowed on them when they were
illegal? They are not receiving the earned-income tax credit now. It is
not something that is being taken away from them. It is a question of
when are we going to bestow that additional benefit on people who were
in our country illegally and how much of an incentive does this payment
to them create for other people who want to come into our country
illegally?
That is some of the confusion we have. In my view, the first thing
you do to reduce the flow of illegal immigration into the country is to
quit rewarding it by Federal largesse. That is the first thing. If you
cannot go out and arrest everybody--and that is not practical--and we
are not going to do these other things, at least don't give people
extra financial benefits as a reward to coming into our country
illegally.
I am very concerned about that. I think that it is not a little bitty
matter because the--Madam President, I would ask that I be notified
when there is 5 minutes remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
Mr. SESSIONS. So what I would say to my colleagues is, this is going
to cost a lot of money. You do not have to be trained in economics to
understand that money comes from somebody. Who does the money come
from? It comes from American workers and taxpayers, many of whom are
having their wages depressed as a result of this huge flow of illegal
labor. They are being asked to pay an earned-income tax credit check of
$1,800, on average, to individuals who were illegal a few months before
and possibly still have not completed the full background check. They
still may not have completed the process to go to even a Z visa. Then
they may be in a Z visa status for some time.
I know it is said it is not amnesty because they have to pay a fine.
How much is the fine? $1,000. They pay a $1,000 fine. Well, they do not
actually pay a $1,000 fine. When they get this probationary status
visa, they only pay $200. They pay the rest of it on an installment.
Nobody has stated and set out how they are going to pay it. Presumably,
they can pay it for 8 years or more.
So a person here illegally under the legislation that is now before
us, that person would obtain legal status in the country, be able to
work, and would then be entitled to receive an earned-income tax
credit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. So they would receive that earned-income tax credit,
which would be, on average, almost $2,000, and they would pay only
$200. Now, that is a pretty good deal, if you can get it, it seems to
me. It is not necessary. It is not necessary as a matter of law, and it
is not necessary as a matter of morality. It is certainly contrary to
sound principles of Government. We should not do that.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is an amendment
that would impact our Treasury by perhaps, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, $10 billion in the next 10 years--$10
billion. So it is quite a sizable chunk.
Madam President, I see my friend, Senator Lieberman is here. I yield
the remainder of the time I have left to him. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3\1/2\ minutes.
The Senator from Connecticut.
amendment no. 1191
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend, Senator Sessions.
I appreciate his kind gesture. That brings me back within 30 seconds of
what I originally had. I appreciate that.
I am going to speak on amendment No. 1191, which is set down for a
vote this evening. This is an amendment that would improve our Nation's
treatment of asylum seekers, that is, people who come to our shores
seeking refuge from persecution they have suffered in their home
countries based on race, religion, nationality or political conviction.
As far as I know, this is the only amendment on the treatment of
those seeking asylum that will be considered as part of this
comprehensive immigration legislation. I offer this amendment because
the Congressionally chartered Commission on International Religious
Freedom has told us that our country, our Government, is failing in its
historic duty to those ``longing to breathe free'' from the Statue of
Liberty.
I believe, as the Commission outlined, we can address this serious
challenge at very little expense, with no adverse affect on our
Nation's security, and without impairing immigration enforcement
operations. It is the right thing to do. It is consistent with our best
values in our history. In fact, as you know, our Founding Fathers
understood the Nation's role to be not just a haven for those seeking
freedom but a haven for those seeking freedom from persecution.
Thomas Jefferson once likened the United States to a ``New Canaan,''
the Biblical Canaan in mind, where victims of persecution, and I am
quoting here, ``will be received as brothers and secured against like
oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government.''
That is exactly what America has become. To the great benefit of this
country, some of the greatest Americans in our history came here as
refugees seeking asylum from persecution. Nobel Laureates Albert
Einstein and Thomas Mann became neighbors in Princeton, NJ. Henry
Kissinger and Madeline Albright came with their families to the United
States, fleeing from the Nazis and Communists, respectively, and went
on, of course, to become Secretaries of State.
If I might, on a point of personal privilege say, most special to me,
on a day in 1949, then a child, my wife, Hadassah Freilich Lieberman,
came here with her parents seeking asylum from Communist
Czechoslovakia. This national duty to those fleeing persecution is
emblazoned in a particular stanza on the Statue of Liberty that says:
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the
imprisoned lightning,
And her name . . . Mother of Exiles.
Yet despite that lofty sentiment, too often today we are apparently
turning asylum seekers away without the proper hearings guaranteed them
by law, or confining them in prison conditions alongside convicted
criminals while their cases are pending. That is what the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported to Congress.
This group was established, I am proud to say, in 1998, pursuant to
legislation I introduced along with then-Senator Nickles and still,
fortunately, Senator Specter.
It was aimed at strengthening our Government advocacy on behalf of
individuals around the world who were being persecuted for their faith.
Congress in the year that we established the Commission on
International Religious Freedom also expressed its concern that
recently enacted expedited removal procedures might be causing our own
Government to mistreat victims of oppression, religious oppression, who
came to the United States seeking asylum.
[[Page S7141]]
To find out if this was happening, Congress directed the newly
established Commission to study the treatment of asylum seekers. The
Commission conducted a comprehensive investigation and released a
report in February of 2005 that was quite critical of the procedures of
the Department of Homeland Security.
The report's recommendations were reasonable and straightforward.
Unfortunately, 2 years passed. I persistently asked officials at the
Department of Homeland Security when it would respond to the report and
was always told the same: The recommendations are under review.
It appeared that little or nothing was being done. In fact, this
February, 2007, the Religious Freedom Commission itself issued a
blistering report 2 years after its initial report in which it gave out
grades. The Customs and Border Patrol Agency received an F with respect
to its treatment of asylum seekers. The Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Agency received mostly Fs, and an overall grade of D. The
Department of Homeland Security itself generally received an overall
grade of D as well in its treatment of those claiming to be coming to
America to seek asylum from persecution--religious, racial, nationality
or based on political conviction.
That is unacceptable. Remember it was Congress that originally
expressed concern about the treatment of asylum seekers. It was
Congress that directed the Commission it had created to study whether
there is a problem, was a problem, and now, in this Congress, as part
of this comprehensive immigration reform bill, it must be Congress that
will fix the problems the Commission has found.
That is why I introduced separate legislation earlier this year and
then filed this amendment. I am pleased to say it appears I have come
to some agreement with the Department of Homeland Security on a
modified version of the amendment which I hope will be broadly
supported by my colleagues.
It implements the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom and will improve our treatment of those
who come to our shores claiming they seek asylum from persecution.
We have made a number of changes to address the concerns the
Department of Homeland Security brought to us. I am pleased to describe
them briefly.
The Commission on Religious Freedom found that too often the
Department of Homeland Security was returning asylum seekers to
countries where they were persecuted without giving them a chance to
adequately make their case that they had a credible basis for their
claims of persecution. Often employees of the Department of Homeland
Security were failing to even ask these asylum seekers if they feared
persecution, as required by Department procedures, before they were
removed. This amendment would require what might be called simple
quality assurance procedures so that the Department of Homeland
Security can ensure its practices comply with its policies.
Secondly, virtually all the defense facilities the Department of
Homeland Security uses are run as maximum security prisons, and in many
cases those seeking asylum in this country, because they claim to be
fleeing countries that were persecuting them, those detainees are
forced to share cells with convicted criminals in maximum security
prisons, sometimes in county jails. This is not appropriate for asylum
seekers and other detainees who are not criminals and are not being
criminally prosecuted. This amendment would require better Department
of Homeland Security standards for those detention facilities to make
them more consistent with our best values and the words that are
emblazoned on the Statute of Liberty. This amendment would also
encourage the development of more appropriate facilities for asylum
seekers and families with children. These would be modeled after two
secure but less restrictive facilities that the Department of Homeland
Security already operates, one in Florida and the other in
Pennsylvania.
The amendment will also encourage the expansion of secure
alternatives to detention such as supervised release programs. Congress
has already funded programs of this kind, and they have been
successful. The amendment ensures the Department of Homeland Security
will conduct vigorous oversight of the detention facilities it uses so
the facilities, in fact, are complying with Department standards.
It is time we put in place and enforce safeguards to ensure people
fleeing persecution are treated humanely and in accordance not just
with our Nation's laws but with our best values.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Amendment No. 1191, as Modified
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I have a modification to the amendment, which I send
to the desk at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Subtitle __Asylum and Detention Safeguards
SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Secure and Safe
Detention and Asylum Act''.
SEC. __02. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Credible fear of persecution.--The term ``credible fear
of persecution'' has the meaning given that term in section
235(b)(1)(B)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(B)(v)).
(2) Detainee.--The term ``detainee'' means an alien in the
custody of the Department of Homeland Security who is held in
a detention facility.
(3) Detention facility.--The term ``detention facility''
means any Federal facility in which an alien detained pending
the outcome of a removal proceeding, or an alien detained
pending the execution of a final order of removal, is
detained for more than 72 hours, or any other facility in
which such detention services are provided to the Federal
Government by contract, and does not include detention at any
port of entry in the United States.
(4) Reasonable fear of persecution or torture.--The term
``reasonable fear of persecution or torture'' has the meaning
given that term in section 208.31 of title 8, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(5) Standard.--The term ``standard'' means any policy,
procedure, or other requirement.
SEC. __03. RECORDING EXPEDITED REMOVAL INTERVIEWS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish quality
assurance procedures and take steps to effectively ensure
that questions by employees of the Department exercising
expedited removal authority under section 235(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)) are asked
in a standard manner, and that both these questions and the
answers provided in response to them are recorded in a
uniform fashion.
(b) Factors Relating to Sworn Statements.--Where
practicable, as determined by the Secretary in his
discretion, any sworn or signed written statement taken of an
alien as part of the record of a proceeding under section
235(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1225(b)(1)(A)) shall be accompanied by a recording of the
interview which served as the basis for that sworn statement.
(c) Exemption Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to
interviews that occur at facilities, locations, or areas
exempted by the Secretary pursuant to this subsection.
(2) Exemption.--The Secretary or the Secretary's designee
may exempt any facility, location, or area from the
requirements of this section based on a determination by the
Secretary or the Secretary's designee that compliance with
subsection (b) at that facility would impair operations or
impose undue burdens or costs.
(3) Report.--The Secretary or the Secretary's designee
shall report annually to Congress on the facilities that have
been exempted pursuant to this subsection.
(d) Interpreters.--The Secretary shall ensure that a
competent interpreter, not affiliated with the government of
the country from which the alien may claim asylum, is used
when the interviewing officer does not speak a language
understood by the alien and there is no other Federal, State,
or local government employee available who is able to
interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially.
(e) Recordings in Immigration Proceedings.--Recordings of
interviews of aliens subject to expedited removal shall be
included in the record of proceeding and may be considered as
evidence in any further proceedings involving the alien.
(f) No Private Right of Action.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to create any right, benefit, trust, or
responsibility, whether substantive or procedural,
enforceable in law or equity by a party against the United
States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities,
entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any person, nor
does this section create any right of review in any
administrative, judicial, or other proceeding.
[[Page S7142]]
SEC. __04. OPTIONS REGARDING DETENTION DECISIONS.
Section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1226) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) in the first sentence by striking ``Attorney General''
and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
(ii) in the second sentence by striking ``Attorney
General'' and inserting ``Secretary'';
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting
``Secretary''; and
(II) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``but'' at the end;
and
(iii) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) the alien's own recognizance; or
``(D) a secure alternatives program as provided for in this
section; but'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Attorney General'' and
inserting ``Secretary'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting
``Secretary'' each place it appears; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or for humanitarian
reasons,'' after ``such an investigation,''; and
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Attorney General'' and
inserting ``Secretary'';
(B) in paragraph (1), in subparagraphs (A) and (B), by
striking ``Service'' each place it appears and inserting
``Department of Homeland Security''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Service'' and inserting
``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
SEC. __05. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PAROLE PROCEDURES AND
STANDARDIZATION OF PAROLE PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General and the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall jointly conduct a review and report
to the appropriate Committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives within 180 days of the date of enactment of
this Act regarding the effectiveness of parole and custody
determination procedures applicable to aliens who have
established a credible fear of persecution and are awaiting a
final determination regarding their asylum claim by the
immigration courts. The report shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of the rate at which release from detention
(including release on parole) is granted to aliens who have
established a credible fear of persecution and are awaiting a
final determination regarding their asylum claim by the
immigration courts throughout the United States, and any
disparity that exists between locations or geographical
areas, including explanation of the reasons for this
disparity and what actions are being taken to have consistent
and uniform application of the standards for granting parole.
(2) An analysis of the effect of the procedures and
policies applied with respect to parole and custody
determinations both by the Attorney General and the Secretary
on the alien's pursuit of their asylum claim before an
immigration court.
(3) An analysis of the effect of the procedures and
policies applied with respect to parole and custody
determinations both by the Attorney General and the Secretary
on the alien's physical and psychological well-being.
(4) An analysis of the effectiveness of the procedures and
policies applied with respect to parole and custody
determinations both by the Attorney General and the Secretary
in securing the alien's presence at the immigration court
proceedings.
(b) Recommendations.--The report shall include
recommendations with respect to whether the existing parole
and custody determination procedures applicable to aliens who
have established a credible fear of persecution and are
awaiting a final determination regarding their asylum claim
by the immigration courts should be modified in order to
ensure a more consistent application of these procedures in a
way that both respects the interests of aliens pursuing valid
claims of asylum and ensures the presence of the aliens at
the immigration court proceedings.
SEC. __06. LEGAL ORIENTATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall ensure that all
detained aliens in immigration and asylum proceedings receive
legal orientation through a program administered and
implemented by the Executive Office for Immigration Review of
the Department of Justice.
(b) Content of Program.--The legal orientation program
developed pursuant to this section shall be based on the
Legal Orientation Program carried out by the Executive Office
for Immigration Review on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(c) Expansion of Legal Assistance.--The Secretary shall
ensure the expansion through the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Service of public-private partnerships that
facilitate pro bono counseling and legal assistance for
aliens awaiting a credible fear of persecution interview or
an interview related to a reasonable fear of persecution or
torture determination under section 241(b)(3).
SEC. __07. CONDITIONS OF DETENTION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that standards
governing conditions and procedures at detention facilities
are fully implemented and enforced, and that all detention
facilities comply with the standards.
(b) Procedures and Standards.--The Secretary shall
promulgate new standards, or modify existing detention
standards, to comply with the following policies and
procedures:
(1) Fair and humane treatment.--Procedures to prevent
detainees from being subject to degrading or inhumane
treatment such as physical abuse, sexual abuse or harassment,
or arbitrary punishment.
(2) Limitations on solitary confinement.--Procedures
limiting the use of solitary confinement, shackling, and
strip searches of detainees to situations where the use of
such techniques is necessitated by security interests, the
safety of officers and other detainees, or other
extraordinary circumstances.
(3) Investigation of grievances.--Procedures for the prompt
and effective investigation of grievances raised by
detainees.
(4) Access to telephones.--Procedures permitting detainees
sufficient access to telephones, and the ability to contact,
free of charge, legal representatives, the immigration
courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Federal
courts through confidential toll-free numbers.
(5) Location of facilities.--Location of detention
facilities, to the extent practicable, near sources of free
or low-cost legal representation with expertise in asylum or
immigration law.
(6) Procedures governing transfers of detainees.--
Procedures governing the transfer of a detainee that take
into account--
(A) the detainee's access to legal representatives; and
(B) the proximity of the facility to the venue of the
asylum or removal proceeding.
(7) Quality of medical care.--
(A) In general.--Essential medical care provided promptly
at no cost to the detainee, including dental care, eye care,
mental health care, and where appropriate, individual and
group counseling, medical dietary needs, and other medically
necessary specialized care. Medical facilities in all
detention facilities used by the Department maintain current
accreditation by the National Commission on Correctional
Health Care (NCCHC). Requirements that each medical facility
that is not accredited by the Joint Commission on the
Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) will seek
to obtain such accreditation. Maintenance of complete medical
records for every detainee which shall be made available upon
request to a detainee, his legal representative, or other
authorized individuals.
(B) Exception.--A detention facility that is not operated
by the Department of Homeland Security or by a private
contractor on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security
shall not be required to maintain current accreditation by
the NCCHC or to seek accreditation by the JCAHO.
(8) Translation capabilities.--The employment of detention
facility staff that, to the extent practicable, are qualified
in the languages represented in the population of detainees
at a detention facility, and the provision of alternative
translation services when necessary.
(9) Recreational programs and activities.--Frequent access
to indoor and outdoor recreational programs and activities.
(c) Special Standards for Noncriminal Detainees.--The
Secretary shall promulgate new standards, or modifications to
existing standards, that--
(1) recognize the distinctions between persons with
criminal convictions or a history of violent behavior and all
other detainees; and
(2) ensure that procedures and conditions of detention are
appropriate for a noncriminal, nonviolent population.
(d) Special Standards for Specific Populations.--The
Secretary shall promulgate new standards, or modifications to
existing standards, that--
(1) recognize the unique needs of--
(A) victims of persecution, torture, trafficking, and
domestic violence;
(B) families with children;
(C) detainees who do not speak English; and
(D) detainees with special religious, cultural, or
spiritual considerations; and
(2) ensure that procedures and conditions of detention are
appropriate for the populations described in paragraph (1).
(e) Training of Personnel.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that personnel
in detention facilities are given specialized training to
better understand and work with the population of detainees
held at the facilities where such personnel work. The
training should address the unique needs of--
(A) aliens who have established credible fear of
persecution;
(B) victims of torture or other trauma and victims of
persecution, trafficking, and domestic violence; and
(C) families with children, detainees who do not speak
English, and detainees with special religious, cultural, or
spiritual considerations.
(2) Specialized training.--The training required by this
subsection shall be designed to better enable personnel to
work with detainees from different countries, and detainees
who cannot speak English. The training shall emphasize that
many detainees have no criminal records and are being held
for civil violations.
(f) No Private Right of Action.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to create any right, benefit, trust, or
responsibility,
[[Page S7143]]
whether substantive or procedural, enforceable in law or
equity by a party against the United States, its departments,
agencies, instrumentalities, entities, officers, employees,
or agents, or any person, nor does this section create any
right of review in any administrative, judicial, or other
proceeding.
SEC. __08. OFFICE OF DETENTION OVERSIGHT.
(a) Establishment of the Office.--
(1) In general.--There shall be established within the
Department an Office of Detention Oversight (in this section
referred to as the ``Office'').
(2) Head of the office.--There shall be at the head of the
Office an Administrator. At the discretion of the Secretary,
the Administrator of the Office shall be appointed by, and
shall report to, either the Secretary or the Assistant
Secretary of Homeland Security for United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement. The Office shall be independent of
the Office of Detention and Removal Operations, but shall be
subject to the supervision and direction of the Secretary or
Assistant Secretary.
(3) Schedule.--The Office shall be established and the
Administrator of the Office appointed not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Responsibilities of the Office.--
(1) Inspections of detention centers.--The Administrator of
the Office shall--
(A) undertake regular and, where appropriate, unannounced
inspections of all detention facilities;
(B) develop a procedure for any detainee or the detainee's
representative to file a confidential written complaint
directly with the Office; and
(C) report to the Secretary and to the Assistant Secretary
all findings of a detention facility's noncompliance with
detention standards.
(2) Investigations.--The Administrator of the Office
shall--
(A) initiate investigations, as appropriate, into
allegations of systemic problems at detention facilities or
incidents that constitute serious violations of detention
standards;
(B) conduct any review or audit relating to detention as
directed by the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary;
(C) report to the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary the
results of all investigations, reviews, or audits; and
(D) refer matters, where appropriate, for further action
to--
(i) the Department of Justice;
(ii) the Office of the Inspector General of the Department;
(iii) the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the
Department; or
(iv) any other relevant office or agency.
(3) Report to congress.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator of the Office shall
submit to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary, the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives an annual report on
the Administrator's findings on detention conditions and the
results of the completed investigations carried out by the
Administrator.
(B) Contents of report.--Each report required by
subparagraph (A) shall include--
(i) a description of--
(I) each detention facility found to be in noncompliance
with the standards for detention required by this subtitle;
and
(II) the actions taken by the Department to remedy any
findings of noncompliance or other identified problems; and
(ii) information regarding whether such actions were
successful and resulted in compliance with detention
standards.
(c) Cooperation With Other Offices and Agencies.--Whenever
appropriate, the Administrator of the Office shall cooperate
and coordinate its activities with--
(1) the Office of the Inspector General of the Department;
(2) the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the
Department;
(3) the Privacy Officer of the Department;
(4) the Department of Justice; or
(5) any other relevant office or agency.
SEC. __09. SECURE ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary shall
establish a secure alternatives program under which an alien
who has been detained may be released under enhanced
supervision to prevent the alien from absconding and to
ensure that the alien makes appearances related to such
detention.
(b) Program Requirements.--
(1) Nationwide implementation.--The Secretary shall
facilitate the development of the secure alternatives program
on a nationwide basis, as a continuation of existing pilot
programs such as the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program
developed by the Department.
(2) Utilization of alternatives.--In facilitating the
development of the secure alternatives program, the Secretary
shall have discretion to utilize a continuum of alternatives
to a supervision of the alien, including placement of the
alien with an individual or organizational sponsor, or in a
supervised group home.
(3) Aliens eligible for secure alternatives program.--
(A) In general.--Aliens who would otherwise be subject to
detention based on a consideration of the release criteria in
section 236(b)(2), or who are released pursuant to section
236(c)(2), shall be considered for the secure alternatives
program.
(B) Design of programs.--In developing the secure
alternatives program, the Secretary shall take into account
the extent to which the program includes only those
alternatives to detention that reasonably and reliably
ensure--
(i) the alien's continued presence at all future
immigration proceedings;
(ii) the alien's compliance with any future order or
removal; and
(iii) the public safety or national security.
(C) Continued evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate
regularly the effectiveness of the program, including the
effectiveness of the particular alternatives to detention
used under the program, and make such modifications as the
Secretary deems necessary to improve the program's
effectiveness or to deter abuse.
(4) Contracts and other considerations.--The Secretary may
enter into contracts with qualified nongovernmental entities
to implement the secure alternatives program and, in
designing such program, shall consult with relevant experts
and consider programs that have proven successful in the
past.
SEC. __10. LESS RESTRICTIVE DETENTION FACILITIES.
(a) Construction.--To the extent practicable, the Secretary
shall facilitate the construction or use of secure but less
restrictive detention facilities for the purpose of long-term
detention where detainees are held longer than 72 hours.
(b) Criteria.--In pursuing the development of detention
facilities pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall--
(1) consider the design, operation, and conditions of
existing secure but less restrictive detention facilities;
and
(2) to the extent practicable, construct or use detention
facilities where--
(A) movement within and between indoor and outdoor areas of
the facility is subject to minimal restrictions;
(B) detainees have ready access to social, psychological,
and medical services;
(C) detainees with special needs, including those who have
experienced trauma or torture, have ready access to services
and treatment addressing their needs;
(D) detainees have frequent access to programs and
recreation;
(E) detainees are permitted contact visits with legal
representatives and family members; and
(F) special facilities are provided to families with
children.
(c) Facilities for Families With Children.--In any case in
which release or secure alternatives programs are not a
practicable option, the Secretary shall, to the extent
practicable, ensure that special detention facilities for the
purposes of long-term detention where detainees are held
longer than 72 hours are specifically designed to house
parents with their minor children, including ensuring that--
(1) procedures and conditions of detention are appropriate
for families with minor children; and
(2) living and sleeping quarters for children under 14
years of age are not physically separated from at least 1 of
the child's parents.
(d) Placement in Nonpunitive Facilities.--Among the factors
to be considered with respect to placing a detainee in a less
restrictive facility is whether the detainee is--
(1) part of a family with minor children;
(2) a victim of persecution, torture, trafficking, or
domestic violence; or
(3) a nonviolent, noncriminal detainee.
(e) Procedures and Standards.--Where necessary, the
Secretary shall promulgate new standards, or modify existing
detention standards, to promote the development of less
restrictive detention facilities.
(f) No Private Right of Action.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to create any right, benefit, trust, or
responsibility, whether substantive or procedural,
enforceable in law or equity by a party against the United
States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities,
entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any person, nor
does this section create any right of review in any
administrative, judicial, or other proceeding.
SEC. __11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this subtitle.
(b) Effective Date.--This subtitle and the amendments made
by this subtitle shall take effect on the date that is 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, it is my understanding that based on
the agreement we have reached after negotiation with the Department of
Homeland Security, the Senate is prepared to agree to the amendment. I
ask unanimous consent that occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the
amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1191), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. This will mean the amendment now listed as No. 6 of
those
[[Page S7144]]
to be voted upon would no longer have to be voted upon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the remainder of
the time.
Amendment No. 1250
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of my earlier
amendment which would take the blinders off law enforcement personnel
when it comes to investigating fraud and other wrongful and even
criminal conduct on the part of those who are claiming an advantage
under this legislation, as well as third parties who might be
implicated in fraud or other criminality.
I would first like to respond to Senator Kennedy's comments, and then
I want to speak to the Menendez amendment briefly. Senator Kennedy
earlier claimed my amendment eliminated all kinds of protections of
confidentiality. He said he provided a level of protection of
confidentiality for individuals so it will encourage them to come
forward and file their applications for Z visas, and he is worried if
we allow law enforcement access to that information to investigate
third party fraud or other criminality, the applicants for the Z visas
will not be willing to come forward.
It should be noted that my amendment does not eliminate all
protections. It simply ensures law enforcement has access to
information for those who cannot qualify for Z status under the terms
of the underlying bill, including those who are criminals and
absconders who have reflected their prior disregard for our laws. Also,
despite Senator Kennedy's claim, their proposal still protects
information for aliens who have committed crimes but have not been
convicted and are denied Z status. My amendment would make that
information available to law enforcement personnel in the discharge of
their official duties.
Furthermore, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
acknowledges there was fraud in sworn affidavits and claims.
He said he is now alluding to the 1986 fraud under the agricultural
amnesty bill that I mentioned in my earlier remarks and which were the
subject of a New York Times article dated November 12, 1989. He said we
took action in this legislation to fix it.
First, let me express my appreciation to the Senator for
acknowledging that the third party affidavits that were used to qualify
for benefits in 1986 were a large source of fraud.
I see nothing in the bill that would ensure that fraudulent sworn
affidavits, especially those provided by third parties, are accessible
to law enforcement to prosecute the fraud.
This type of fraud remains protected and thus we haven't come very
far from the problems we encountered in the 1986 amnesty.
Senator Kennedy says we must guarantee confidentiality.
He said:
If we expect individuals to participate in that system, we
have to guarantee their confidentiality. It's enormously
important. This system isn't going to function and work
unless we do.
What my esteemed colleague is essentially saying is, we need to
protect those who have violated our laws, even committed felonies and
other crimes for which they have not yet been convicted, because they
would not come out of the shadows and register.
The point is, it is more than just coming out of the shadows. It is
giving legal status to a person who has arguably violated our laws and
put them on a path to citizenship, denying law enforcement the
opportunity to investigate and to prosecute where appropriate.
Further, we are essentially binding the hands of law enforcement
because even if they wanted to prosecute these individuals and remove
them from the country, they couldn't get the evidence needed to make
the case, nor could they remove the person because by merely applying
for Z status, they get the protection from removal.
Is that really what we want to say to our country about who should be
permitted to remain in the United States? I think not. Nothing in my
amendment would affect the ability of those who have entered the
country in violation of our immigration laws or who have simply
overstayed their visa or even those who have produced false documents
in order to gain access to work. My amendment would not even address
any of those individuals. This present amendment would not do that.
But, surely, we want to remove the cloak of confidentiality, the
blinders, from our law enforcement personnel that would allow them to
investigate cases of fraud, wrongful conduct, and other criminality.
I remain flabbergasted that the proponents of this bill would embrace
this sort of provision. I would think what they would want to do is
restore public confidence that we are actually reestablishing the rule
of law when it comes to this broken immigration system. If anything,
this serves to confirm the worst fears of skeptics about this bill
because, frankly, it does nothing but confirm their worst fears that
this is a vehicle for perpetuating the same sort of mistakes we
encountered in the 1986 legislation, but apparently those lessons were
not learned.
Amendment No. 1194
I want to speak briefly about the amendment offered by Senator
Menendez while he is on the Senate floor regarding those who want to
immigrate to our country, but particularly those who have respected our
laws and who have waited patiently in line.
I am particularly troubled by the situation that his amendment is
designed to remedy because the proponents of the underlying bill have
said: We are not going to allow any line jumping. We are going to
provide an opportunity for those who have violated the law to get right
with the law, but we are not going to do so to the detriment of people
who have followed the rules and waited patiently in line, expecting
that their application for a visa or legal permanent residency would be
acted on. As I said before the recess, this is a very important
principle to me. It is a matter of fundamental fairness and crucial to
the integrity of not only our immigration system but our entire legal
system. It would be extremely unfair to allow someone who has not
respected our laws to be able to obtain a green card before someone who
has respected our laws and waited in line for a chance to enter the
country legally.
I am not talking about the claim that those who wait in line legally
have to do it in their home country while someone who is here illegally
and obtains a Z card can wait in country. That certainly is an issue.
Those who are here illegally are getting the advantage over and above
those who have made the decision to obey our laws waiting patiently
outside the country. Even Secretary Chertoff, a key negotiator of the
compromise, admits in a USA Today article that there is a ``fundamental
unfairness'' anytime illegal immigrants are permitted to stay in
country, while those who have respected our laws wait patiently outside
of the country. I am afraid we make what even Secretary Chertoff admits
is a ``fundamental unfairness'' that much more unfair in the underlying
bill. To their credit, proponents of this compromise have stated that
the proposal would not allow anyone who came here illegally to obtain
their green card until everyone who chose to follow the law gets their
green card. That is a laudable goal, and that should be our goal. But
to achieve this goal, the compromise arbitrarily sets the cutoff date
for legally ``being in line'' at May 1, 2005, while setting the date
for the end of the line for those illegally here at January 1, 2007.
As an illustration, this means someone who chose to respect our
immigration laws, chose not to enter illegally, and filed the proper
immigration paperwork on June 1, 2005, is not considered to be ``in
line'' under the terms of this bill, while someone who decided not to
respect the laws and enter illegally on the same date can obtain a Z
status and ultimately secure American citizenship.
My staff has met with a number of groups who have focused on this
particular problem. I know Senator Menendez has been listening to their
same concerns. The Asian American Justice Center in particular has made
compelling arguments that declaring the end of the line for legal
immigration as May 1, 2005, is unfair. Other groups, including the
Interfaith Immigration Coalition, the Jewish Council for Public
Affairs, the U.S. Conference of Bishops, the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund have written to my office to explain that
those people who played by the
[[Page S7145]]
rules and applied after May 1, 2005, will not be cleared as part of the
family backlog pursuant to the terms of the bill and will lose their
chance to immigrate under current rules and be placed in line behind Z
visa applicants. Some of these groups report that more than 800,000
people who have patiently waited in line will in essence be kicked out
of the line.
I understand the Menendez amendment will be voted on soon. It
addresses an important issue, ensuring that those who decided to abide
by the laws will not be disadvantaged simply because they chose not to
come here illegally.
As I said, I have been struggling with this over the past couple
weeks because this is a matter of fundamental fairness. So I continue
to consider this amendment. I know others are likewise considering it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1250
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes equally divided on
amendment No. 1250.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand we have 2 minutes equally
divided before the vote.
Simply stated for my colleagues, my amendment would remove the
blinders that would prevent law enforcement from investigating and
prosecuting wrongful conduct, including fraud and criminality.
I would think if there is one thing we learned from the 1986 amnesty,
this type of confidentiality provision, if it protects any information
to be gleaned from the applications of those who have actually been
denied Z visas, it would be that we should pursue and support this kind
of amendment which would help law enforcement and, even more
importantly, help restore public confidence that we are not playing
games with them but that we are actually serious about restoring the
rule of law when it comes to our broken immigration system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Cornyn amendment attacks the whole
issue of confidentiality for these undocumented aliens. If the Cornyn
amendment is adopted, there are no individuals who are going to
register for any of these programs--none--because all their information
will be available.
This is a report-to-deport amendment. How are you going to convince
individuals to come in and register for the Z visa program or any of
the programs if they know all of their information is going to go to
the Immigration Service and every other agency?
With regard to criminality, with regard to terrorism, with regard to
all the fraud and all the abuse, we have put in here careful
protections. Those kinds of protections are supported by Jon Kyl, by
other Republican Members, and by all of us here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. If you accept the Cornyn amendment, it effectively
undermines all confidentiality.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate everyone allowing me to say a
few words before the vote starts. We have six votes that will take
place. Any minute, the votes will start. We worked out an agreement--
tentative in nature, but I think it is fairly firm--we will have six
more votes tonight. I want to alert Members we will have more votes
tonight. It could be a late night, for sure.
When that is all completed, we will have had--I do not know the exact
number--35 votes, or something like that, and it is evenly divided
between Democrats and Republicans. There is one vote difference as to
who offered the amendment. But I think we have made a lot of progress.
I hope people feel they are having an opportunity to have their
voices heard in this regard. Within a short few votes, we will
certainly have had more votes than we had last year. I am not sure that
is a good guide for anything, but that is at least what we will be able
to show everyone. I hope people would be able to see that the end is in
sight.
Remember, if cloture is invoked on this matter, we will have 30 hours
more of amendments. As I have indicated to my friend, the distinguished
junior Senator from Arizona and others, upon being asked the question
whether all these postcloture votes would take place, the answer is, we
are not going to be blocking any people from voting on germane
amendments.
I hope everyone understands it will be a late night tonight, and we
will start early in the morning.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the Cornyn amendment No. 1250.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--39
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Dodd
Johnson
Kerry
The amendment (No. 1250) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1331
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes evenly divided on
the Reid amendment, No. 1331.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the earned-income tax credit is an important
program that benefits low-income workers with children who are legally
working in this country. Those working illegally in this country are
ineligible for the earned-income tax credit.
This amendment makes it perfectly clear that nothing in the bill
changes the prohibition of an illegal alien's access to the earned-
income tax credit. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is not a cover vote. It is not a
cover vote at all. It leaves the bill exactly as it was. The problem
with the legislation is that those people who are today illegal and
would be made legal through the probationary status visa or the Z visa
would be entitled to receive the earned-income tax credit, which is, on
average, nearly $1,800 per recipient. That earned-income tax credit is
a direct payment from the taxpayers of America.
This amendment--unlike the vote you cast last year when I raised it--
would allow the earned-income tax credit when you get a green card but
not when you are on a Z visa or probationary visa. So this is less far-
reaching than the amendment I offered last year.
I urge that this amendment not be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 1331.
[[Page S7146]]
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]
YEAS--57
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--40
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1331) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1234
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided before
the vote on the Sessions amendment No. 1234.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, who is eligible for the earned-income tax
credit? Legal workers. They work. Who are the beneficiaries of the
earned-income tax credit? Ninety-eight percent of it goes to poor
children. What country in the world has the greatest percent of poor
children? The United States of America. Ninety-eight percent of the
benefits of the earned tax credit go to poor children, and many of them
are American children.
In the history of the Internal Revenue Code, we have never excluded a
class. We have treated everyone equally. The Sessions amendment for the
first time in the history of the United States of America is going to
say: Workers who are here legally are going to be denied the earned-
income tax credit that can benefit their children who are looking for a
better future.
I hope the Sessions amendment will be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the earned-income tax credit was
designed and has been in effect as a support for American workers. That
is what it is. Four million people who do not have children receive it.
This amendment says those people who are here illegally today who are
made legal under this bill through the Z visa or the probationary
status who have not yet obtained legal permanent residence would not
get this benefit. The people are supposed to pay a fine, $1,000. They
only have to pay $200. They pay that $200 fine, sign up, and they get a
$2,000 earned-income tax credit, which is basically a check from the
United States Government.
The people who are here illegally would be, under this bill, made
legal, be allowed to work. They are not receiving earned-income tax
credit today. There is no moral, legal, or principled reason to give
them that in the future until they become a legal permanent resident.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1234.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd),
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Klobuchar
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--41
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Collins
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1234) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SESSIONS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1194
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes evenly divided before
the vote on the Menendez amendment, No. 1194.
Who yields time?
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, under the bill before us, U.S. citizens
have less rights than an undocumented alien. The base bill says, you
break the law, you get benefits up to January 1, 2007. You follow the
rule of law, and your right as an American citizen to claim your
family, for which you have already submitted a petition, is
extinguished as of May 1, 2005. That is fundamentally wrong.
How do we promote the rule of law when we say to a U.S. citizen, who
has already applied for their family member waiting abroad, paid their
fees, the government has collected them, their application has been
approved, they followed the rules and obeyed the law, that they have an
inferior right--an inferior right--to someone who did not follow the
rules and crossed the border and who will ultimately receive a benefit
superior to that of a U.S. citizen who is claiming their family?
Why do we tell the family of the U.S. citizen to go to the back of
the line behind people who violated the law? This is a vote about
family values and family reunification. This is a vote about the rule
of law. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first of all, this is an amendment that would
enable people to enter the United States and become immigrants, green
card holders, and eventually citizens, who, under the current law, have
no expectation of ever getting those rights because they are in
categories or are from countries in which the waiting line is so long
that they would never, ever be able, under existing law, to become a
U.S. citizen.
In addition, because it would allow several hundred thousand
immigrants to come into this country who would not otherwise be legal
under existing law, there are three budget points of order, and,
therefore, at the conclusion
[[Page S7147]]
of these remarks, I will be making a budget point of order. I hope my
colleagues agree that we should not waive the budget under these
circumstances.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending
amendment, No. 1194, to S. 1348, violates section 201, the pay-as-you-
go point of order of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2008.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I regret that we have started down this
road. I move to waive section 201 of the concurrent resolution for
purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--44
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Dodd
Johnson
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1460
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided before
the vote on the Kyl amendment No. 1460. Who yields time?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, could we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate not waiving the budget in this
last point of order. I will confess to you, I think that Senator
Menendez had a point in saying we should only allow people who had a
reasonable expectation to be immigrants, and those who didn't should
not. The bill itself drew an arbitrary deadline. Senator Menendez drew
a different arbitrary deadline. This side-by-side actually is
constructed so that, under existing law, everyone who has a reasonable
expectation of being allowed to immigrate under a family visa will be
able to immigrate under a family visa. Only those people who never had
any reasonable expectation would be denied.
What it does is to take it out to the year 2027, 20 years from now,
and anyone who could have had a reasonable expectation of immigrating
within that 20-year period would be allowed to immigrate under this
amendment. It is a more precise and fair and just way to allow family
members to come into the United States. The numbers are approximately
identical to those who would be allowed to immigrate under the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against
this. It is not more than a figleaf. It sounds great, 2027. The
definition of ``reasonable expectation'' means absolutely nothing. The
majority of the Senate voted to have some form, although it did not
pass a budget point of order, to have some form of family reunification
of U.S. citizens waiting to go be reunited with their family abroad.
This does nothing. As a matter of fact, I have heard some of the
children, family members of U.S. citizens, would have to wait 60 years.
I have the State Department's report. None of them are more than 15
years. So the reality is, this is a figleaf for those who voted against
the last one. It does absolutely nothing for family reunification.
Let's keep at least a strong message we do want to reunify families
as we move this bill ahead and vote against the Kyl amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The question is on agreeing to
the amendment.
Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd)
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Chambliss
Dodd
Johnson
The amendment (No. 1460) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1182 to Amendment No. 1150
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1182, the Thomas
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Thomas,
proposes an amendment numbered 1182.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary to establish new units of Customs
Patrol Officers)
At the end of section 101 of the amendment, insert the
following:
(c) Shadow Wolves Apprehension and Tracking.--
(1) Purpose.--The purpose of this subsection is to
authorize the Secretary, acting through the Assistant
Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (referred to
in this subsection as the ``Secretary''), to establish new
units of Customs Patrol Officers
[[Page S7148]]
(commonly known as ``Shadow Wolves'') during the 5-year
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Establishment of new units.--
(A) In general.--During the 5-year period beginning on the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to
establish within United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement up to 5 additional units of Customs Patrol
Officers in accordance with this subsection, as appropriate.
(B) Membership.--Each new unit established pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall consist of up to 15 Customs Patrol
Officers.
(3) Duties.--The additional Immigration and Customs
Enforcement units established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A)
shall operate on Indian reservations (as defined in section 3
of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452)) located
on or near (as determined by the Secretary) an international
border with Canada or Mexico, and such other Federal land as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate, by--
(A) investigating and preventing the entry of terrorists,
other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics,
and other contraband into the United States; and
(B) carrying out such other duties as the Secretary
determines to be necessary.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums as
are necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
Mr. REID. I believe there is no debate on this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1182) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1272 to Amendment No. 1150
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1272 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Schumer,
proposes an amendment numbered 1272.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve security by providing for the establishment of B-1
visitor visa decisionmaking guidelines and a tracking system)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. B-1 VISITOR VISA GUIDELINES AND DATA TRACKING
SYSTEMS.
(a) Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act--
(A) the Secretary of State shall review existing
regulations or internal guidelines relating to the
decisionmaking process with respect to the issuance of B-1
visas by consular officers and determine whether
modifications are necessary to ensure that such officers make
decisions with respect to the issuance of B-1 visas as
consistently as possible while ensuring security and
maintaining officer discretion over such issuance
determinations; and
(B) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall review
existing regulations or internal guidelines relating to the
decisionmaking process of Customs and Border Protection
officers concerning whether travelers holding a B-1 visitor
visa are admissible to the United States and the appropriate
length of stay and shall determine whether modifications are
necessary to ensure that such officers make decisions with
respect to travelers admissibility and length of stay as
consistently as possible while ensuring security and
maintaining officer discretion over such determinations.
(2) Modification.--If after conducting the reviews under
paragraph (1), the Secretary of State or the Secretary of
Homeland Security determine that modifications to existing
regulations or internal guidelines, or the establishment of
new regulations or guidelines, are necessary, the relevant
Secretary shall make such modifications during the 6-month
period referred to in such paragraph.
(3) Consultations.--In making determinations and preparing
guidelines under paragraph (1), the Secretary of State and
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with
appropriate stakeholders, including consular officials and
immigration inspectors.
(b) Data Tracking Systems.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act--
(A) the Secretary of State shall develop and implement a
system to track aggregate data relating to the issuance of B-
1 visitor visas in order to ensure the consistent application
of the guidelines established under subsection (a)(1)(A); and
(B) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop and
implement a system to track aggregate data relating to
admissibility decision, and length of stays under, B-1
visitor visas in order to ensure the consistent application
of the guidelines established under subsection (a)(1)(B).
(2) Limitation.--The systems implemented under paragraph
(1) shall not store or track personally identifiable
information, except that this paragraph shall not be
construed to limit the application of any other system that
is being implemented by the Department of State or the
Department of Homeland Security to track travelers or travel
to the United States.
(c) Public Education.--The Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall carry out activities to
provide guidance and education to the public and to visa
applicants concerning the nature, purposes, and availability
of the B-1 visa for business travelers.
(d) Report.--Not later than 6 and 18 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress,
reports concerning the status of the implementation of this
section.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1272) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for all Senators, we now have a number of
amendments lined up which we can vote on this evening. There will be
about 80 minutes, an hour and a half, before the vote starts.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 10 o'clock
be for debate with respect to the following amendments and that the
time be equally divided and controlled between the majority and
Republican leaders or their designees, with the time to run
concurrently; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments
in this agreement prior to the vote; that at 10 o'clock tonight, the
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order
listed; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote, with the
votes after the first being 10 minutes in duration; and that if the
amendment is not pending, then it be called up now.
The first amendment we will vote on is Clinton, No. 1183, as further
modified; second is Ensign, No. 1374; the third one will be Salazar,
No. 1384; fourth one is Inhofe, No. 1151; the fifth one is Hutchison,
No. 1415; sixth is Vitter, No. 1339; seventh is Obama, No. 1202, as
modified with the changes at the desk; and eighth is Dorgan, No. 1316.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
Amendment NO. 1374
(Purpose: To improve the criteria and weights of the merit-based
evaluation system)
Beginning on page 262, strike line 36 and all that follows
through page 264, line 1, and insert the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Category Description points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment .................................... 66
Occupation U.S. employment in specialty
occupation
(as defined by the Department of
Labor)-35 pts
Honorable Service within any branch
of the United States Armed Services
for (1) 4 years with an honorable
discharge, or (2) any period of
time pursuant to a medical
discharge-35 pts
U.S. employment in STEM or health
occupation, current for at least 1
year (extraordinary or ordinary)-35
pts
Employer endorsement A U.S. employer willing to pay 50%
of a legal permanent resident's
application fee either 1) offers a
job, or 2) attests for a current
employee-23 pts
U.S. employment in high demand
occupation (the 30 occupations that
have grown the most in the
preceding 10-year period, as
determined by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics)-21 pts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. employment Years of lawful employment for a
experience U.S. employer (in the case of
agricultural employment, 100 days
of work per year constitutes 1
year)-5 pts/year
(max 30 pts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age of worker Worker's age: 25-39-18 pts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education Graduate degree in a STEM field 50
(terminal degree) (including the health sciences).-50
pts
[[Page S7149]]
Graduate degree in a non-STEM field-
34 pts
Bachelor's degree in a STEM field
(including the health sciences)-40
pts
Bachelor's degree in a non-STEM
field-32 pts
Associate's degree in a STEM field
(including health sciences)-30 pts
Associate's degree in a non-STEM
field-25 pts
Completed certified Department of
Labor registered apprenticeship-23
pts
High school diploma or GED-21 pts
Completed certified Perkins
vocational education program-20 pts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
English and civics Native speaker of English or 30
TOEFL score of 100 or higher-30 pts
TOEFL score of 90-99-25 pts
Pass USCIS Citizenship Tests in
English & Civics-21 pts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home ownership Sole owner of place of residence-8 24
pts per year of ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical insurance Current private medical insurance 30
for entire family-10 pts per year
held
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total .................................... 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment No. 1202, as modified
At the end of title V, insert the following:
SEC. 509. TERMINATION.
(a) In General.--The amendments described in subsection (b)
shall be effective during the 5-year period ending on
September 30 of the fifth fiscal year following the fiscal
year in which this Act is enacted.
(b) Provisions.--The amendments described in this
subsection are the following:
(1) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) of
section 501.
(2) The amendments made by subsections (b), (c), and (e) of
section 502.
(3) The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), (c)(1),
(d), and (g) of section 503.
(4) The amendments made by subsection (a) of section 504.
(c) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants.--
(1) Temporary supplemental allocation.--Section 201(d) (8
U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended by adding at the end the follows
new paragraphs:
``(3) Temporary supplemental allocation.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1) and (2), there shall be a temporary
supplemental allocation of visas as follows:
``(A) For the first 5 fiscal years in which aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) are eligible for an
immigrant visa, the number calculated pursuant to section
503(f)(2) of the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
``(B) In the sixth fiscal year in which aliens described in
section 101(a)(15)(Z) are eligible for an immigrant visa, the
number calculated pursuant to section 503(f)(3) of Secure
Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of
2007.
``(C) Starting in the seventh fiscal year in which aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) are eligible for an
immigrant visa, the number equal to the number of aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) who became aliens admitted
for permanent residence based on the merit-based evaluation
system in the prior fiscal year until no further aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) adjust status.
``(4) Termination of temporary supplemental allocation.--
The temporary supplemental allocation of visas described in
paragraph (3) shall terminate when the number of visas
calculated pursuant to paragraph (3)(C) is zero.
``(5) Limitation.--The temporary supplemental visas
described in paragraph (3) shall not be awarded to any
individual other than an individual described in section
101(a)(15)(Z).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective on October 1 of the sixth fiscal year
following the fiscal year in which this Act is enacted.
(d) Worldwide Level of Family-Sponsored Immigrants.--
(1) Increase in level.--Section 201(c)(1)(B)(ii) (8 U.S.C.
1151(c)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ``226,000'' and
inserting ``567,000''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective during the period beginning on October 1
of the sixth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which
this Act is enacted and ending on the date that an alien may
be adjust status to an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence described in section 602(a)(5).
amendment no. 1384
(Purpose: To preserve and enhance the role of the English language)
At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted, add the
following:
SEC. 702A. DECLARATION OF ENGLISH AS LANGUAGE.
(a) In General.--English is the common language of the
United States.
(b) Preserving and Enhancing the Role of the English
Language.--The Government of the United States shall preserve
and enhance the role of English as the language of the United
States. Nothing in this Act shall diminish or expand any
existing rights under the laws of the United States relative
to services or materials provided by the Government of the
United States in any language other than English
(c) Definition of Law.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``laws of the United States'' includes the Constitution
of the United States, any provision of Federal statute, or
any rule or regulation issued under such statute, any
judicial decisions interpreting such statute, or any
Executive Order of the President.
amendment no. 1151
(Purpose: To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as
the national language of the Government of the United States, and for
other purposes)
Strike section 702 and insert the following:
SEC. 702. ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``S.I.
Hayakawa National Language Amendment Act of 2007''.
(b) In General.--Title 4, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new chapter:
``CHAPTER 6--LANGUAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT
``Sec.
``161. Declaration of national language.
``162. Preserving and enhancing the role of the national language.
``163. Use of language other than English.
``SEC. 161. DECLARATION OF NATIONAL LANGUAGE.
``English shall be the national language of the Government
of the United States.
``SEC. 162. PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL
LANGUAGE.
``(a) In General.--The Government of the United States
shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the
national language of the United States of America.
``(b) Exception.--Unless specifically provided by statute,
no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the
Government of the United States or any of its officials or
representatives act, communicate, perform or provide
services, or provide materials in any language other than
English. If an exception is made with respect to the use of a
language other than English, the exception does not create a
legal entitlement to additional services in that language or
any language other than English.
``(c) Forms.--If any form is issued by the Federal
Government in a language other than English (or such form is
completed in a language other than English), the English
language version of the form is the sole authority for all
legal purposes.
``SEC. 163. USE OF LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH.
``Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the use of a
language other than English.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for title
4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``6. Language of the Government..............................161''.....
amendment no. 1316
(Purpose: To sunset the Y-1 nonimmigrant visa program after a 5-year
period)
At the end of section 401, add the following:
(d) Sunset of Y-1 Visa Program.--
(1) Sunset.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, or any amendment made by this Act, no alien may be
issued a new visa as a Y-1 nonimmigrant (as defined in
section 218B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added
by section 403) on the date that is 5 years after the date
that the first such visa is issued.
(2) Construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) may be
construed to affect issuance of visas to Y-2B nonimmigrants
(as defined in such section 218B), under the AgJOBS Act of
2007, as added by subtitle C, under the H-2A visa program or
any visa program other than the Y-1 visa program.
amendment no. 1415
(Purpose: To prohibit obtaining social security benefits based on
earnings obtained during any period without work authorization)
Strike section 607 and insert the following:
SEC. 607. PRECLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY CREDITS FOR PERIODS
WITHOUT WORK AUTHORIZATION.
(a) Insured Status.--Section 214 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 414) is amended by striking subsection (c) and
inserting the following new subsections:
``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes
of subsections (a) and (b), no quarter of coverage shall be
credited for any calendar year beginning on or after January
1, 2004, with respect to an individual who is not a natural-
born United States citizen, unless the Commissioner of Social
Security determines, on the basis of information provided to
the Commissioner in accordance with an agreement entered into
under subsection (d) or otherwise, that the individual was
authorized to be employed in the United States during such
quarter.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an individual who
was assigned a social security account number prior to
January 1, 2004.
``(d) Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall enter into an agreement with the Commissioner
of Social Security to provide such information as the
Commissioner determines necessary to carry out the limitation
on crediting quarters of coverage under subsection (c).''.
(b) Benefit Computation.--Section 215(e) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(e)) is amended--
[[Page S7150]]
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) in computing the average indexed monthly earnings of
an individual, there shall not be counted any wages or self-
employment income for any year for which no quarter of
coverage may be credited to such individual as a result of
the application of section 214(c).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to benefit applications filed on or after the
date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act based on the wages or self-employment income of an
individual with respect to whom a primary insurance amount
has not been determined under title II of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) before such date.
amendment no. 1339
(Purpose: To require that the U.S. VISIT system--the biometric border
check-in/check-out system first required by Congress in 1996 that is
already well past its already postponed 2005 implementation due date--
be finished as part of the enforcement trigger)
On page 3, line 25 insert the following new subsection:
(6) The U.S. Visit System: The integrated entry and exit
data system required by 8 U.S.C. 1365a (Section 110 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996), which is already 17 months past its required
implementation date of December 21, 2005, has been fully
implemented and is functioning at every land, sea, and air
port of entry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New York.
Amendment No. 1183, As Further Modified
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1183, as further
modified, and ask unanimous consent for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
majority leader, Senator Reid, and Senator Dodd be added as cosponsors
to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I know there are very strongly held and
honestly felt disagreements in this Chamber on the legislation before
us. Many of these differences are mirrored across our country. The
issue of immigration strikes deeply at our values and our concept of
America and stirs our emotions. While we may reach different
conclusions, we all have to begin at the same place. Our immigration
system is in crisis. I have concerns about this underlying bill, but we
all do. This is not the bill any of us individually would have written
and produced for the Senate's consideration. But I commend the primary
sponsors for bringing this to the floor of the Senate so we can debate
the issues it raises and try to craft a solution that simultaneously
honors our Nation's strong immigrant heritage and respects the rule of
law.
As a nation, we place a premium on compassion, respect, and policies
that help families. But our immigration laws don't reflect that. In
fact, our current laws tear families apart. For lawful permanent
residents and their spouses and minor children, this bill not only
fails to help them, it actually makes matters worse. It is time to take
all the rhetoric about family values and put it into action and show
that we mean what we say when we talk about putting families first.
That is what my amendment does.
This amendment is a bipartisan amendment offered with Senator Hagel
and Senator Menendez. It is our view we must make reuniting families a
priority in our immigration system, that we should show compassion for
those living apart from their spouses and minor children, that we
should reform immigration in a way that honors families and brings them
together. Unfortunately, the compromise bill before us fails to help
families and children stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire created by our
tangled, broken immigration system. Spouses and minor children of
lawful permanent residents applying for a green card are required to
remain overseas while awaiting their new legal status. The problem is
there is a huge backlog.
Despite what some have suggested this week, the visa backlog for
spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents is significant
and substantial. According to the June 2007 State Department visa
bulletin, the backlog is currently more than 5 years long. For some,
that backlog could stretch even longer. What does that mean? In very
human terms it means parents are forced apart from their children.
Husbands are separated from their wives. Tax-paying, law-abiding, legal
immigrants who are doing the right thing are treated as though their
families don't matter at all.
If you are a lawful permanent resident and your spouse and minor
children are caught in this long line, your family is not allowed to
enter the United States even for a brief visit. You are limited in your
ability to leave the United States to visit your spouse and children
overseas. Under our current policies, lawful permanent residents are
forced to choose between their newly adopted country and living with
their spouse or children. Five years may not seem long to some of us.
We serve 6 years in the Senate. It seems to go by very fast. But 5
years in the life of a young child or in a marriage is precious time
indeed. For a 10-year-old child, it is half their life. It is time that
can never be recaptured. Unfortunately, that 5-year timeframe is often
much less than what actually happens to these families.
We are proposing that spouses and minor children of lawful permanent
residents be exempt from the visa caps and that we finally allow these
nuclear families who have been separated for far too long to be
reunited. This amendment is necessary because the compromise bill does
absolutely nothing to bring these families together. In fact, the
compromise actually reduces the number of visas for spouses and minor
children of lawful permanent residents. It does not allocate a single
visa to address the existing backlog for these family members.
As I have said many times, we have a national interest in fostering
strong families. This amendment is supported by more than 100 faith-
based, family, and immigrant advocacy organizations and denominations.
I thank all of these organizations that have endorsed and rallied
support for the Clinton-Hagel-Menendez amendment. They do an invaluable
service in speaking out for people whose voices would otherwise not be
heard.
The amendment is not considered a bill killer. It is not considered
an amendment everybody has to vote against who has agreed to the
compromise, because many of us know these legal permanent residents.
Many of us actually work with them. Some of them even contribute to the
campaigns of people in this Chamber. These are people who are doing
everything they can to play by the rules, except they are divided for
years from their spouses and minor children. I hope the Chamber will
endorse this act of compassion and common sense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I certainly agree with the Senator from
New York about the value of having family unity. A strong family is
certainly a very important value that we ought to maintain to the
maximum extent possible. I intend at the appropriate time, before the
vote comes up, to raise a point of order under concurrent resolution
21, but for a few moments I will deal with the merits as to the issue
advanced by the Senator from New York.
The effect of adoption of this amendment would mean those who are now
legal permanent residents or green card holders would have an immediate
right to bring in their spouse and children, and it is estimated there
are some 800,000 of these green cards in existence at the present time.
From many perspectives, it would be worthwhile to have that
accomplished. That would certainly be a personal preference of mine, if
it were not for many collateral constraining factors about the
difficulty of allowing that many additional green cards all of a
sudden. The 800,000 figure is the best estimate that is available at
this late hour.
The effect of the amendment offered by the Senator from New York as
to the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants would be that
as soon as the backlog is cleared after 8 years, then at that time they
would be eligible to have green cards issued as green card holders or
as legal permanent residents, after the backlog is
[[Page S7151]]
cleared in 8 years. Under the amendment by the Senator from New York,
they would have the right to bring in their spouse and minor children.
Again, if I were to devise an ideal system and there were not other
limitations, I certainly would not disagree with that as a desirable
way to proceed. But this compromise was constructed very carefully and
very painfully by the dozen or so Senators from both the Democratic
side of the aisle and the Republican side of the aisle who structured
it. The Presiding Officer was a member of that group, the junior
Senator from Colorado. In structuring the arrangement to not allow
legal permanent residents or so-called green card holders from bringing
in their spouse and minor children, there were many tradeoffs. As I
have said on the floor earlier, many of the provisions which were
excluded, rejected, were ones I personally would have favored. I have
cast a fair number of votes here during the course of this debate that,
given my preferences, I would have cast differently. But the overall
objective of getting a bill passed is worth the compromises which have
been made.
Earlier today, this amendment was characterized by the Senator from
New Mexico as the politics of compromise. Well, that might sound bad,
but that happens to be the reality of what goes on in the Senate all
the time. It goes on in all political bodies. We don't have anyone who
can structure a bill to his or her precise specifications. If I could
structure a bill, it would be a very different bill. But my role, along
with a number of other Senators, was to try to find accommodations to
find a bill which we could agree to and bring to the floor and then, if
the full Senate wanted to work its will to the contrary, that is the
way the system works. But there is nothing inappropriate about the
politics of compromise. That means we sacrifice the better for the
good.
The overall good is to get a bill passed which will deal with 12
million undocumented immigrants in a constructive way. It gives them an
opportunity to escape the fear they now have that they will be detected
at any time. It gives us an opportunity to identify those who are not
contributing, who have criminal records, who ought to be deported. We
can't deport all 12 million, but for the balance to be on the path
toward citizenship, that is a very worthwhile, commendable objective as
to the greater picture. We have comprehensive reforms. We have securing
the border and employer verification. I will not go through all of the
details, but this bill is very important. This accommodation to reject
the contentions of the Senator from New York is necessary if we are to
attain the greater good.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I just interrupt with a question to the
Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is it not true that under this amendment,
this amendment would wipe out the difference between a citizen of the
United States and a green card holder with respect to their right to
immigrate the nuclear family? So there would be no distinction between
a green card holder and a citizen's rights?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is correct. It
is the citizen who has the right to bring a spouse and minor children,
not legal permanent residents, so-called green card holders.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it was the intention of the majority
leader to ask that there be 10 minutes on each amendment to be evenly
divided. I think that was the desire in order to be fair to all of
those who were going to offer amendments. I think those who are
offering amendments were given that kind of assurance. So I ask
unanimous consent that the remaining time be allocated equally between
the amendments and equally in terms--well, I ask unanimous consent that
there be 10 minutes on each amendment equally divided between those who
favor the amendment and those who are opposed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, may I inquire, was a budget point of
order or other point of order made against the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not raised. It is not in order at this
time.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, let me, just if I could, respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes of my time on the
following amendment and yield it to the Senator. She was not aware of
the time limitation when she made her remarks. I think she ought to be
entitled to make her comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
I think it is important to recognize that there are many distinctions
between a U.S. citizen and a foreigner living legally in the United
States which uphold the value of citizenship, but the right to marry
and to live with your family should not be one of them.
Denying legal permanent residents, who are on the pathway to pledging
their allegiance to the United States, the right to marry and live
together in our country is an obstacle to their becoming the kind of
full-fledged citizens we want them to be.
Also, under current law, guest workers, students, and others can be
with their spouses and minor children and then adjust to legal
permanent resident status with them. Due to the backlogs, only lawful
permanent residents are treated differently.
So, Mr. President, I understand that those who worked so hard on
coming up with this compromise may not be able to find their way clear
to support this at this time, but I do not believe we have a national
interest in separating legal permanent residents from their spouses and
minor children.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 1151
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me make an inquiry. It is my
understanding that under the UC, all of the eight amendments that will
be considered on the floor have been called up and are in order to be
considered; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not all been reported at this time.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me tell you something procedurally
that is going to happen here in about an hour at 10 o'clock. There is a
list of amendments. First, there are two of them, and then the Salazar
amendment will be considered. After that, the Inhofe amendment will be
considered.
Now, I want to get something understood procedurally because I think
it is very important for everyone, particularly the occupant of the
chair at this time, who has the Salazar amendment, to know what is
going on.
A year ago, we debated the Inhofe amendment that would make English
the national language for the United States of America. We debated it
at length, hour after hour. We talked about that every President back
to and including Theodore Roosevelt in 1916 made comments that English
should be the official and should be the national language of the
United States of America. We talked about the 50 countries that have
English as a national language, one being in west Africa--Ghana--and
one being in east Africa--Kenya--but not the United States of America.
Now, one of the things that happened a year ago is I had my amendment
up, which is essentially the same amendment that will be up tonight. I
would like to have you listen carefully. It is really a one-sentence
amendment. All it says is:
Unless specifically provided by statute, no person has a
right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the
United States or any of its officials or representatives act,
communicate, perform or provide services, or provide
materials in any language other than English.
In other words, this is an entitlement.
Now, it has exceptions in there for laws that are on the books, such
as laws protecting the sixth amendment, which would be the Court
Interpreters Act and other such things. However, it
[[Page S7152]]
was aimed--I don't want to act as if I am hiding this because we talked
about this a year ago. One of the things has been very controversial:
At the very end of the Clinton administration was when he passed
Executive Order No. 13166, and 13166 essentially said that if you are a
recipient of Federal funds, then your documentation can all be done in
whatever language you desire, so it could be Swahili, it could be
Spanish, or any other language.
Now, what happened a year ago was they passed my amendment--and my
amendment was exactly the same as it is today--and it passed by a vote
of 62 to 35. Does that sound right? So, 62 to 35. Then right after
that, the Salazar amendment--and I see the Senator from Colorado is
preparing to respond--was passed, which gutted my amendment, did away
with it.
So those individuals who voted for my amendment and then voted for
the Salazar amendment--and there are quite a few Democrats and
Republicans who did that--voted to make English the official language
and then, in the next vote, 3 minutes later, voted to take it away.
Now, I see that this is happening again tonight because,
unfortunately, I have to offer my amendment first. I anticipate it will
be adopted because it is very popular. Right now, the polling shows
that 91 percent of the people in America want English as an official
language, and 76 percent of Hispanics believe English should be an
official language.
Now, I am prepared to go on and debate this issue. I should not have
to do it since 62 Members of this body already voted in favor of it.
What I am going to say now, though, is very significant because if you
vote for the Inhofe amendment when it comes up tonight, then vote for
the Salazar amendment, you are essentially saying you are gutting the
Inhofe amendment and you do not want English to be the official or the
national language of the United States of America.
The Salazar amendment is exactly the language in the underlying bill.
I have it before me. I would be glad to read it. In fact, I am not sure
how this time is going to work out. If we have time equally divided, I
am going to run out of time. So I will just state that the language is
precisely the same in the underlying bill. The underlying bill actually
puts into law executive orders, and this specific executive order of
13166, which gives anyone an entitlement to any language he or she
wants, will become law. That is the language which is in there right
now.
I am attempting to change that language. If my amendment is adopted,
it will change. However, the next vote is going to be on the Salazar
amendment. I am just saying to you, as my friends out here, do not vote
for both of us because if you vote for both of us, you are voting to
make English the official language, and then, in the very next vote,
you are taking it away and reinstating the original language in the
bill.
So I hope no one is going to think it is going to go unnoticed if
anyone votes for my amendment and then votes to kill the amendment they
just supported. That is what is going to happen tonight. I look forward
to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
proposed amendment by my good friend from Oklahoma. First and foremost,
I want to say I believe all Members of this Chamber and the people in
the United States understand that English is important and that people,
in order to succeed in our society, need to learn English; that the
ability to acquire the English language and to speak it well is
something we all support, and we support a number of different programs
that would assist people who have limited English proficiency to
acquire the English language as a keystone to success. I think that
goes without saying.
The amendment that is proposed by my friend from Oklahoma would, in
fact, do a number of things that I think are problematical and should
cause all of us to vote against the amendment.
The first and a very important reason to vote against his amendment
is that it is contrary to the provisions of law that exist in many
States. For example, in the State of New Mexico, you have in the
Constitution--in the Constitution of the State of New Mexico--as my
good friend, Senator Domenici, would articulate here, a provision that
says that many of the documents within that State have to be provided
in both English and Spanish. The same thing is true for the State of
Hawaii. I believe this is a States rights issue, and those
constitutions of those States ought to be respected. There are other
States in our Union which have decided they are going to adopt English
as their official language. I believe that is a matter the States ought
to decide. I do not believe it is a matter we ought to be imposing here
from Washington, DC, on the backs of the States of our Union.
Also, at the end of the day, what my good friend from Oklahoma is
attempting to do with his amendment is to undo an executive order that
has been long recognized by President George Bush, implemented by
President George Bush, conceived by President Bill Clinton, and put
into law with his signature.
President Clinton's executive order was signed on April 11, 2000, on
October 26, 2001. That executive order was recognized by Ralph Boyd
with the U.S. Department of Justice under the Bush administration. It
was again recognized on January 11, 2002, and again on November 12,
2002, and then again on December 1 of 2003.
If I may take a moment to just read a portion of what was included in
that communication that went out from the U.S. Department of Justice to
all of the court administrators across the United States and all of the
U.S. district courts. It said the following in the memorandum:
It is beyond question that America's courts discharge a
wide range of important duties and offer critical services
both inside and outside the courtroom. Examples range from
contact with the clerk's office in pro se matters to
testifying at trial. They include but are not limited to
matters involving domestic violence, restraining orders,
parental rights, and other family law matters, eviction
actions, alternative dispute resolution or mediation
programs. . . .
And on and on.
What both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration
recognized in this executive order is that it is important to make sure
people who have limited English proficiency receive the kinds of
services so they can understand what is going on in terms of the
interface between the Government and themselves.
Mr. President, I believe my friend from Oklahoma has an amendment in
search of a problem, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes. I am sorry
to interrupt the debate.
____________________