[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8526-S8532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate today must make a choice. We
can listen to the American people and support comprehensive immigration
reform or we can ignore their voice and allow a dysfunctional
immigration system to continue, at serious risk to our national
security.
If we do not choose reform, we will perpetuate a system that allows
500,000 illegal immigrants to enter the United States each year, forces
12 million illegal immigrants to live in the shadows, and fosters a
culture of fear and hatred against immigrants.
America demands change. Our bill provides the change the country
needs. Change is not easy. There is much to criticize in this bill, but
criticism is much easier than rolling up your sleeves and finding a
solution.
The American people are growing impatient for a solution. Yesterday,
the Washington Post reported that more than 1,000 bills have been
introduced in the last year by State legislators fed up with
congressional inaction.
States and cities are starting to step in and solve their immigration
problems in their own way, regardless of the national interest. We
cannot let that happen.
We are the guardians of the national interest. The national interest
demands action on immigration. If you are for a national immigration
policy, a policy that is bipartisan in spirit and determined to
succeed, then support this bill.
This bill contains the toughest and most comprehensive crackdown on
illegal immigration in our Nation's history. It enhances our national
security through tougher border protections. It ensures that criminals
do not enter this country or receive immigration benefits. It prevents
undocumented workers from obtaining jobs, and cracks down on employers
who defy the law by hiring them.
This bill tackles the essential problem of providing the workers our
economy needs. It will allow businesses to recruit temporary immigrants
as workers--workers who will return home--if American workers and legal
immigrants are not available to fill needed jobs.
This bill will allow families to plan for the future by tackling the
plight of 12 million people hidden in the shadows of this country. We
are giving undocumented immigrants a chance to earn legal status.
People deserve this chance if they pay stiff fines, work for 8 years,
pay their taxes, learning English, and go to the back of the line to
wait their turn.
The American dream is a story of immigrants. We now have an
opportunity to write a new chapter in the story of the American dream--
an opportunity to enact tough but fair measures that protect our
national security, restore the rule of law, and uphold our tradition as
a nation of immigrants.
I look forward to the coming debate. Let's go forward together and
achieve genuine immigration reform.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator has 26 minutes,
of which 15 has been dedicated to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator
from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want the Senator from Virginia to
have his full 15 minutes, and then, if it is agreeable, I will have
what is left.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from California be recognized,
and the remaining time on our side be allocated to her.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield, at this time, to
the Senator from California, and then follow her, if she so desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to just take a few minutes this
morning--I have spoken about this before--to address the motivations I
have behind the amendment I have offered and to express my hopes that
our colleagues will support this amendment. I
[[Page S8527]]
have offered this amendment in the hopes of helping to save the vote on
this bill.
I am well aware there are a number of people in this body who would
like to see this bill go down the tubes. I do not share that sentiment.
There is a lot of good in this bill. We were given a briefing card
yesterday, with which the Presiding Officer, I know, is also familiar,
which outlines a lot of the positive aspects in this piece of
legislation. It will go a long way toward toughening border security.
It will, in a measurable way, toughen employer sanctions. It will
create a program that, in my view, is a proper way to deal with the
guest worker issue.
The difficulty I have with the present legislation, and the reason I
have offered my amendment, goes to the issue of legalization and the
notion of fairness in terms of how the laws of the United States are
applied.
The second problem I have with this bill is the issue of
practicality, when you look at what are called the touchback
provisions. We do have, by all estimates, between 12 million and 20
million people who are here without papers. We need to be able to say,
openly and honestly, the situation these people are in is a result of
the fact they are here in contradiction of American law.
The average American believes very strongly in the notion of fairness
when it comes to how we enforce our laws. Of those 12 million to 20
million people, as I have said for more than a year, there are a
significant number who have--during a period of lax immigration laws--
come to this country, become part of their community, put down roots,
and deserve a path toward legalizing their status and toward
citizenship.
But to draw the line arbitrarily at the end of last year, to include
every single person--with a few exceptions--who was here in this
country as of the end of last year, I think violates the notion of
fairness among a lot of people in this country. It is one of the
reasons we have had such a strong surge of resentment toward the
legislation as it now exists.
Under my proposal, those who have lived in the United States for at
least 4 years prior to the enactment of the bill can apply to legalize
their status. I would like to point out that a year ago, people in this
body were agreeing to a 5-year residency requirement. This bill is more
generous than the legislation a lot of people in this body and also
immigrants rights groups were supporting a year ago.
We then would move into objective measurable criteria which would
demonstrate that the people who were applying have actually put roots
down in their community through a work history, through payments of
Federal and State income taxes, the knowledge of English, immediate
family members in the United States. These are not all inclusive. They
are the sorts of criteria which would help to advance the legalization
process.
I believe this is fair. I believe people in this country--who
traditionally would be supporting fair immigration policies but who are
worried about the legalization process in this bill--would come forward
and support this bill. We need that support in this country if we
actually are going to solve this problem and move forward.
The second part of this amendment goes to the practicality of the
present legislation. It strikes the bill's unrealistic touchback
requirement. For those who meet the test of having roots in their
community and move forward, it removes the requirement that they have
to go back to their country of origin in order to apply for legal
status.
We know the difficulty a lot of families would have if their
principal breadwinner had to leave his or her employment, go back to
Manila, or wherever, file papers, leave their family here, and
interrupt their job. That is simply impracticable. In many ways, it is
a totally unnecessary obstacle.
So this amendment would reduce the scope of people who were allowed
legalization to those who have put down roots in their communities in a
very fair way that I think Americans will understand, but also would
remove the unnecessary impediment of requiring people to go back to
their country of origin.
I have heard loudly and clearly from not only Virginians but from
people across this country--when I have talked to people about this
issue over the past couple of years--that this Congress should find a
fair system that, on the one hand, protects American workers and, also,
respects the rule of law. This amendment is the fairest method I know
to do so, and to do so realistically in order to truly reform our
broken immigration system.
I am hopeful this amendment will get support. If this amendment
succeeds, I am happy to support the final legislation. As I said, there
are many good provisions in this legislation. But under the present
circumstances, I think there are many people in this body who have a
very difficult time, on the notions of fairness, with the widely
embracing notion of all the people who are involved.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to have an opportunity to speak
on the bill. I know then Senator Hutchison will offer her amendment,
and I will have an opportunity at that time, hopefully, to speak
against the amendment.
Mr. President, there has been one inescapable truth in all of this.
Year after year----
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator from California----
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I am sorry, I
cannot hear you.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield
for a question?
How long does she expect to speak on the bill itself before talking
about the amendment?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. For the remainder of the time we have on this side,
which is----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN.--18 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Isn't some of that
time Senator Webb's time?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. He just spoke.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He concluded his remarks and left the
remainder of the time he had taken.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. For the 14 years I have served on the Immigration
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I have become more and more
convinced that what we have is a broken system. To me, the word
``comprehensive'' means fixing a broken system. The system is broken in
many different directions.
In one direction, every year, year in, year out, 700,000 to 800,000
people cross the border looking for hope, opportunity, work, or to
reunite with family. They come into this country in an illegal status,
and they disappear. There is a portion of our economy that welcomes
immigrant labor. They are able to find work. They are able to hide.
They are able to falsify documents.
I have personally gone to Alvarado Street in Los Angeles and seen
where, in 20 minutes, you can obtain a green card, a driver's license,
a Social Security card. You cannot tell the difference between a real
and a fraudulent document. The border is broken in that we cannot
protect it.
Secondly, it is estimated that 40 percent of the people here
illegally are visa overstays. Some go back after awhile. Some never go
back. What does this constitute? It constitutes a silent amnesty
because these people exist in America. They are able to work in
America. Most are never found by authorities. Those who are found are
similar to the Munoz family in San Diego.
A few weeks ago, a mother and a father were deported in the middle of
the night. They have three American children, the oldest of which is
16. They own their home. They both work. They own their furniture. In
the middle of the night, Immigration Naturalization Service comes in,
picks up the parents and deports them. This is an actual case--the
house is gone, the furniture is gone, the three children are living
with an aunt in San Diego. Why? Because they could be found, or because
perhaps somebody reported them, but they could be found. But the
dominant number of people here illegally cannot be found.
[[Page S8528]]
What this bill tries to do is fix the broken border. We fix it with
infrastructure. We say this new infrastructure, whether it is UAVs or
vehicle barriers or fencing, has to be in place before anything else is
done. The bill mandates $4.4 billion upfront in spending for border
enforcement. This money will be used to carry out the enforcement
triggers. That is one part of the fix.
A second part of the fix----
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.
Mr. KENNEDY. From what the Senator said, therefore, what we are doing
on the border is the most extensive border security in the history of
this country, No. 1; No. 2, with the--am I not correct on that, that
this will be the most extensive--extensive paid-for border security in
the history of this country? Am I correct?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair to the Senator from Massachusetts,
there is no question about it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Secondly, if this legislation doesn't go through, we are
not going to have that provision; is that not correct as well?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Through the Chair to the Senator from Massachusetts,
that is absolutely true. We will have a continuation of what is, in
effect, a silent amnesty.
Mr. KENNEDY. All right. Thirdly, is the Senator saying this is not
only an issue on border security, but it is an issue with regard to
national security because we don't know who those people are and they
disappear into our country, and those who have spoken about national
security in this country have urged us to take this action?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is absolutely true. We have no idea who is in
this country and who comes into this country illegally. We have no idea
who is in this country overstaying their visas.
These are the 12 million people who remain unidentified. This is what
we are trying to do: First, fix the border as it has never been fixed
before. Second, hire the additional Border Patrol, bringing the total
number of agents up to 20,000. Third, fix interior enforcement. Fourth,
provide for employer verification documents. No more fraudulent
documents. Everybody will have biometric documents to be able to prove
they are, in fact, who they are.
One of the big problems is in a category called OTMs, ``Other Than
Mexicans,'' coming across the border. Because it is so easy to come in,
more and more people from other countries are going to Mexico first and
coming up through that border, particularly countries from the Middle
East. This represents a serious national security issue.
Mr. KENNEDY. Could the Senator yield for 2 quick questions?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will.
Mr. KENNEDY. So we are talking about not only national security and
border security, but the Senator is also talking about worksite
security. We don't have any worksite security at the present time. That
is the problem with the 1986 act. We hear a lot of talk about it, but
that is the problem.
Is the Senator telling us we will have the most extensive not only
border security but worksite security; and beyond that we are going to
have 1,000 inspectors to make sure the new security is going to work;
and beyond that, for the first time, we are going to have a tamperproof
card that will finally give us the opportunity to get control of our
immigration system?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct.
This bill has three huge chapters called titles that are devoted to
enforcement. It is extraordinarily important, and it isn't going to get
done if this bill doesn't pass.
Now, in addition to that, it says--because there is no way to find
and deport these individuals because they live in the shadows and
because an overwhelming number of them live a life of hard work and
want to continue to work and want some hope and opportunity for their
family--that if they go through an extensive process--not an easy
process, not a process of amnesty in any way, shape or form--as a
matter of fact, they feel the process may be too tough because they
must go through an extensive period of paying fines. For one person,
the fines amount to $8,500 over the first 8 years. They must learn
English. They must show work documents. They must do this periodically.
They must pay taxes. They must show documents that they have paid
taxes. This is not a pushover by a long shot.
If they can comply with this, they receive something called a Z visa.
That Z visa eventually, between 8 and 13 years into the future, will
enable them, after everyone now in the green card line--after that
green card line is expunged--to get a green card. It is hard. There are
many hoops they will jump through. The fines are heavy. But they say
they will do it. The dominant majority say they will do it. That means
they will be documented. That means the national security problem will
end.
Additionally, we are requiring US-VISIT to track people leaving our
country so we will know if somebody who is here on a visa actually
leaves the country when their visa expires. There is a penalty. If they
come back illegally, they will be held and do some jail time prior to
deportation.
The bottom line is this bill also incorporates two other bills. One
is a bill that has been negotiated between farmers and growers and
organizations representing farm labor, such as the United Farm Workers,
over a substantial period of time. The reason for this portion of the
bill is because agriculture in America is dominantly--perhaps 90
percent--undocumented illegal workers. The reason it is that way is
because American workers will not do the job. I know that in California
because we have tried over the years to get American workers to do
these jobs.
One day I went out to the Salinas Valley, and I watched row crops
being picked. What I saw was the degree to which this is stooped labor
in the hot Sun but with a skill. These people bring a skill.
Agriculture workers have a skill: the way they pick, the way they sort,
the way they pack, the way they prune. If you watch them, you see they
go from crop to crop. They are not American citizens. They come from
other countries. They are the labor that puts our food on the table in
the United States of America.
What this bill does is incorporate a closely negotiated bill called
AgJOBS, which would allow these workers to become documented and, at
the end of 8 years, if they carry out their requirements to continue
their agricultural work for an additional number of years, they are
then eligible to be first in this line for a green card.
The final part of the bill is the DREAM Act, which recognizes that
children, for example, such as the three Munoz children, or other
children who are brought here illegally and go to school and earn a
degree in college or serve in our military, can earn a green card.
So the bill is a compromise bill as well. People on the other side of
the aisle wanted certain things in this bill. People on our side of the
aisle wanted certain things in this bill. It was negotiated and the
bill was put together. Is the bill a perfect bill? No. Is it a good
bill? I absolutely believe that it is. I absolutely believe this Nation
will be better off with this bill. Will the Judiciary Committee have to
practice oversight? We have Senator Kennedy, we have the Presiding
Officer, and members of the Judiciary Committee. I believe very
strongly what we should do is have bimonthly hearings, oversight
hearings into the operation and mechanics of the bill, so that as the
bill is carried out, if there are tweaks that need to be made, we can
make them.
But to fail, at this point in time, is to continue this situation
where 12 million remain unidentified, where they pose a serious risk to
national security, where 700,000 to 800,000 people will enter our
country illegally or overstay their visas over 10 years, with 7 million
to 8 million additional people here in undocumented capacity, where 400
to 500 people die every year trying to cross the Mexican border, and
where 4 million people will continue to wait for a green card. We take
these problems and we try to solve them in this bill.
Now, people who are opposed to the bill say: I don't like this. I am
going to vote against the bill. I don't like that. I am going to vote
against the bill. Yes, they can do that. Yes, they are entitled to do
it, but know what you are doing when you do it. There will be no $4.4
billion to enforce the border. There will be no additional Border
Patrol.
[[Page S8529]]
There will be no electronic verification. There will be no biometric
documents, and the flow and the silent amnesty will, in fact, continue.
This is our chance. We should not squander it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a further
question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Certainly. I would be happy to.
Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I thank her for an excellent review of
where we are. This is a continuing process.
The Senator mentioned earlier about the fines and the fees that are
going to be charged to the population if they are going to be on the
track. After all those who have waited in line gain entrance into the
United States, they would be at least on the track toward a green card.
That amounts to $55 billion, is what it comes to?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is going to be used in terms of border security.
That will be used for border security, worksite security, the
development of the biometric card; and $6 billion of that $55 billion
is going to be used to help to assist States to offset any of the
burdens they have in terms of health care and education--$6 billion is
going into that.
Does the Senator agree with me that if this legislation does not go
through, that $55 billion disappears and Americans are still going to
want to try and make some progress on that line and it is going to be
the taxpayer who is going to pick up the burden? Could the Senator
comment on that.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to. Through the Chair to the Senator
from Massachusetts, he is dead right. This is $55 billion where the
people affected by the bill pay for the costs. That is a big thing: $55
billion will flow to do what needs to be done, whether it is the
biometric cards, whether it is the US-VISIT Program, whether it is the
infrastructure at the border, whether it is the 5,000 additional Border
Patrol; whatever it is in the bill, the fines are very heavy in this
bill. Many people--and a reason why much of the immigrant community has
become concerned about the bill--is because of the size of the fines.
Nonetheless, we can make the argument that this bill will pay for
itself, by and large. The fines are stiff to do that.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Would the Senator
also agree with me that the initial bill, without some of the recent
amendments--we actually find out through CBO that immigrants add to the
economy, and their conclusion--this is the CBO, which is a governmental
agency charged to review it--is actually those immigrants contribute
$25 billion more than using over this period of time as well. I am
wondering because there has been a lot of talk about whether immigrants
add to the country and our society through the payment of taxes. We
have the independent Congressional Budget Office which made that
judgment which is included in the record.
Does the Senator not agree with me, in representing a State that has
both the wonderful opportunities of people who have worked and
contributed to that State, that it is an important contribution that
these workers provide for our society?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there is no question that that is the
case, certainly, in California. We have the largest number of
undocumented immigrants, people estimated at between 2 million and 3
million. California is an expanding economy. When you get your gas
filled in your tank, when you are served a meal in a restaurant, when
you look at who is doing the dishes, the person who is changing the
beds in the hotel where you stay, who transports patients in the
hospital, who does landscaping in the gardens, sweeping the streets,
picking the crops, pruning the crops, working in the canning factories
that dot our State, you see people who are among those 2 million or 3
million people. No question about it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the majority leader has
expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand the other half hour is for the Senator from
Pennsylvania. The Senator from Pennsylvania intended to yield to the
Senator from Texas. I think I can yield 15 minutes to her on his
behalf. I think the Senator can probably get more when Senator Specter
gets back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes have been allocated to the
Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to use 10 minutes. The
Senator from California said she wanted to speak against my amendment.
I would like to reserve 5 minutes of my time for after her argument, so
I can close the discussion on my amendment. I ask unanimous consent
that I be allowed to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California no longer has
time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, in that case, I am going to speak on
my amendment----
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, is the Chair saying I
will not be able to have time to speak against the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time between now and 11:30 has
expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I see. After 11:30, I would be able to speak against
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. After Senator Reid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at some
point between 11:30 and the time we vote, I be allowed to speak for 5
minutes after Senator Feinstein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about probably the most
important bill we are going to address maybe in my time in the Senate,
certainly in the last 25 years, and in the next 25 years, from a
domestic policy standpoint.
There are some good features of this bill. I think we have run into
many problems, one of which is it didn't go through committee, which I
think everybody agrees has caused there to be so many conflicts and
rewrites, and when you adopt an amendment, it changes something else.
That should have been done in committee. Another is that this issue
hits so close to so many people. So we see objections from all
different types of groups, Democrats and Republicans, business groups
and labor groups. So it is something that I think now is on the radar
screen of the American people. It is something that I think is good
that we are discussing because I do believe it is Congress's
responsibility to fix this problem. It is a problem that was made in a
1986 act of Congress when amnesty was granted and the law was not
enforced. There was no guest worker program that was going forward, so
we had illegal behavior and there was a blind eye turned.
Now it is 20 years later, after 1986, and we find ourselves having to
deal with the inability to know who is in our country because we have
not enforced the laws and we have not had a workable program to provide
the jobs that would grow the economy of our country. So here we are,
trying to pass a bill that will fix the problems of the past but also
to set a standard that says we are not going to have the going-forward
capability for someone to come into our country illegally and stay long
enough that they will be able to become legal without applying through
the processes from their home country.
There are good parts of the bill. I give those who have worked so
hard on this bill credit for significant border security increases, for
an effort to end chain migration. In most countries in the world, the
guest worker green card equivalent ratio is two-thirds workers, one-
third family. It is the opposite in America; it is two-thirds family,
one-third worker, which is why we have this crisis of needing more
workers but not having the capability to bring them in legally in a
process that will work. So that effort was made in this bill, and it is
one of the important good points of the bill. So I recognize there are
good parts of the bill.
The problems in the bill must be fixed if we are going to do this
right and deal with the people who are here illegally in a responsible
and rational and pragmatic way but also set the
[[Page S8530]]
standard that we start now, and will be set through the future, that
you must apply from your home country to come into this country to work
legally. If we don't set that standard in the bill, we will have
another disaster 20 years from now that a future Congress will be
trying to fix.
My problem with the bill is the amnesty. Anyone who tries to say it
is not amnesty is not being realistic. If you can come to this country,
stay, never have to go home and go into the process of legalization and
going into our Social Security program, which is allowed in the
underlying bill, that is amnesty. So I have an amendment going forward
that will try to take the amnesty out of this bill. That is one of the
major things I think we can do to make this a bill that could be
supported. My amendment would provide that all adult work-
eligible illegal people in this country would have the ability to come
forward, and they would have 1 year to do it, for a temporary permit
while the processing is done on that person's background, and then a
temporary card would be given, after which a person would have 2 years
to go back to their home country and apply and come in legally to get
that Z visa, or that ZA, which is the ag worker visa, legally in our
country. It was important.
One of the things we did in my amendment that I think is so important
is we treat every work-eligible adult the same way. Whether it is an ag
worker, restaurant worker or someone working in a hotel, everyone would
be treated the same way if they are in the Z-1 category or ZA
category--the workers we are trying to regularize would have the same
requirements.
Now, there will be an amendment later that will say just the heads of
households would have to go home. That was my original thought. But
then how can I say the working spouse of a head of a household could
stay here, but the head of household could not? So we set the 2-year
timeframe for the people who are adult, work-eligible people illegally
in our country--we set 2 years after they have signed up for their
temporary permit for them to go home and get regularized, get that
final stamp before they come back, and if they do have a homestead here
with children, they would have 2 years so that one spouse at a time
could go home. To me, that says we are setting the standard today. It
will be the standard that we ask people, if they want to have the
privilege of working in our country, to do; and we will ask people who
want the privilege 10 years from now and 25 years from now to do the
same, so that we send the major message, which was the problem we had
that created the crisis, that you cannot come to our country and stay
illegally and eventually get regularized without ever having to apply,
according to the law from your home country. That is what my amendment
does.
We do have a modification of the amendment as it applies to
agricultural workers because we don't intend to change the sort of
different requirements for an ag worker to keep their ag worker visa
the same. We have modified our amendment so the basic requirements for
agricultural workers, which is somewhat different from the restaurant
workers, would stay the same, but the ag workers would have the same
requirements that the restaurant worker has, and that is they would
have to go home within the 2-year period after they have signed up as
illegal and apply from home, or have the ability, if the Secretary
designates another consulate as able, to return home to the consulate
to take that application that would be done. So we have the SAFE ID,
which is going to be the basis of the worker verification system, which
will be a tamperproof ID that will have a picture and a biometric
signal that can be picked up easily by an employer. It will be an
online verification system so the employer can, with ease, determine
that the person working is eligible to work.
If we can do this and take the amnesty out of the bill, it is so very
important that we set the standard now, so that everybody who wishes to
have the privilege to work in this great country will know what the
rules are and will know that the rules are going to be enforced. That
is the purpose of my amendment.
I believe if we can pass this amendment, it would add a major
component to this piece of legislation that would say not only are we
going to have border security measures and this effort to end chain
migration, have the merit-based system, take care of the H-1Bs and
technical workers we want to come in and to attract into our country,
that all these things would be done that are good.
But in addition, we are setting the standards today and into the
future that if you want to work here, you come in through the system,
applying from outside the country.
I hope my amendment will be able to be passed. Having the 2 years
after the first year would allow the process to work. Anyone who says
we cannot do the processing with all of the consulates that are
available in the countries, most of whom are going to be in Mexico or
Central or South America--and easily accessible--and also Canada,
anyone who says we cannot do that over a 3-year period, I think, is
raising a red herring.
I believe it is possible, if we are committed to doing it and
committed to the laws of our country that would be adhered to by
everyone who comes in.
We must know who is in our country. We must have a guest worker
program going forward that will work and accommodate the economy that
does need these work jobs that are not being filled.
I hope we can come to an agreement on this bill that we can all
support and know that it is right for our country today and it will be
right for our country 25 years from now and that future Congresses will
not look back and say: What were they thinking? Why didn't they do what
was right for our country? I hope we can do that, Mr. President.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to clarify where we are right
now. It is my understanding in the unanimous consent agreement with
respect to morning business that the next 15 minutes belongs to the
Republican side; that Senator DeMint has 10 minutes reserved of that
time, and then the remaining 5 minutes of that time can be accorded
however the Republican side wishes to do; and that the majority leader
is coming back on the floor at 11:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, 11:30.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me add for clarification, however,
that after 11:30 a.m., I have 5 minutes following Senator Feinstein to
discuss as in morning business my amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator, it is
my understanding that is correct; that following the majority leader,
then I will have 5 minutes to respond to Senator Hutchison and then she
will have 5 minutes to respond to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, as has been noted, I control 10 minutes of
the last 15 minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Vitter be allowed to control the
time of the remaining 5 minutes on the Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I think it would be a good idea that we
create a national warning system to tell Americans when we decide we
need to do something, even if it is wrong. A few weeks ago, we decided
we needed to do something about immigration. A few of the Senators
announced on a Thursday that we had reached this delicate compromise
and nothing could be changed from this bill. We all found out a few
days later that the bill had not been written yet, but over the weekend
one version was written, and by Monday, another version had been
written. We were told we needed to vote on that bill by Friday.
This bill has been a moving target since it began. It is hard to tell
on any given day what is actually in the bill. We were able to convince
our leadership to at least go to a second week. But when many of us
came down to offer our amendments, consistently there was objection to
bringing up additional amendments. When finally the
[[Page S8531]]
original bill came to its final day, there were three cloture votes
that failed. This bill was put down.
Now we have brought it back. We brought back a bill, just yesterday,
a new bill in which we have already found significant flaws the writers
didn't know were there. We have problems in the underlying bill, and
yesterday we were all waiting down on the floor to get this new
amendment, this amendment that is almost as big as the original bill,
373 pages. We were all waiting, and we received it later in the
afternoon.
What actually happened was, when we asked that the amendment be read,
we had to recess the Senate and go finish writing the bill. But we
finally got the bill. It was warm from the copier, 373 pages, after a
couple of hours of delay.
When we asked that it be read so we would understand what was in it,
we finally got the majority leadership to agree we could have the night
to review it, which we greatly appreciate.
Now we have come to the floor, got here at 10 today because we
understood the majority leader was going to divide this amendment in
this grand clay-pigeon procedure to divide this amendment, only to find
out the amendment is being changed, but it hasn't been written. We are
waiting on the floor again to get a new version of this amendment, but
we don't know what is going to be in it.
It is amazing that something so important that has been talked about
on the floor of the Senate, something we have to do, is continuously
being revised and rewritten every day. Instead of stopping and getting
this amendment in some form we can work with, we continue to press the
whole process forward.
Some of us who are critics have been called obstructionists because
we don't think this process is fair or that the underlying bill is
right for America. We have been called a lot of names, but we can't
even get started with a fair process, and we can't start to fix it
with amendments if we don't even have it written yet. It is hard to
know what the amendments should even be if we don't see what is
actually in the bill.
So here we are again. It is going to be offered sight unseen, just as
yesterday, when not one Member of the Senate had read it when it was
offered. We are going to get a new amendment, probably 400 pages today,
that not one Member of the Senate will have read, that we will be
expected to bring up and to vote on.
Mr. President, I wish to ask a couple unanimous consent requests.
First, we need to stop this moving target and know what we are working
with. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time to order
the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, then maybe it would be fair to ask
unanimous consent that after Senator Reid modifies the amendment, that
the modification be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that a unanimous consent request?
Mr. DeMINT. That is a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Objection.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, it is extraordinary that we are using
Senate procedures to actually keep a 400-page amendment from being
read.
I ask unanimous consent that when the amendment is modified, when it
is broken into these clay-pigeon pieces, that I be recognized to
request the yeas and nays on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DeMINT. I am asking for votes. Let's not say later on that we are
trying to stop votes.
I also ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes
consideration of the bill, the pending amendment be temporarily set
aside and that all the filed amendments be called up en bloc and that
the Senate then return to the consideration of the Reid amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, what I have done in these requests is to
show that there is no intent to let this body actually see what we are
voting on, which is incredible with such a complex bill; that we are
going to bring up an amendment we haven't read, and when we ask that it
be read, that request is denied. When we ask for a vote on the
underlying amendment, that is denied. When we ask for the yeas and
nays, which means you can't voice it, that means eventually we are
going to get a vote on the amendment that will be offered today, that
is denied.
I wish to make it clear that those of us who don't think this process
is fair or that this bill is good for this country, that we have not
wanted it to be voted on. But the intent is for these to be modified,
just as they have been throughout this process. All these 26-some-odd
amendments will be modified minute by minute, hour by hour, so when we
come to vote on these amendments, nobody is actually going to know what
is in them.
I heard Members say, it is like what we were talking about a couple
weeks ago, but we found out this morning when we asked questions about
the new amendment that it isn't like what we were talking about a few
weeks ago. In fact, there were important amendments that were passed
that we were told would be in this bill which have been eliminated by
the amendments that have been offered.
We can talk more about this as the process goes forward, but right
now I wish to reserve the remainder of my time and yield to Senator
Vitter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I truly find this process amazing. We have
been told by the master crafters of this bill, who have developed this
grand compromise in a relatively small group, that this is a delicate
compromise and nothing can be allowed to upset it, certainly not
allowing our amendments to reach the floor this week to be debated. So
it has to stay exactly like it is.
For that reason, our amendments are being blocked en masse. But at
the same time, these crafters of the compromise are changing their bill
every half hour. It is a constantly moving target. Just a few days ago,
we were presented with a brandnew underlying bill that is 761 pages. In
addition, yesterday we were given a huge amendment, really 26
amendments put together, that is 373 pages. We had the audacity to ask
that we be allowed to read the amendment and understand it.
After making the clerk read the amendment out loud for some period,
Senator Reid finally acknowledged that, yes, maybe it would be fair to
let us read the amendment. So we recessed for the night. Great. The
trouble is, that amendment is out the window. They are now working on a
brandnew version that they are trying to present soon. We have no idea
what changes are being made to yesterday's amendment to make it today's
amendment. It is probably going to be over 373 pages. So our study last
night is basically for nought.
That process is not fair. It is patently unfair. We have the right to
understand what is before the Senate. We have the right to read it.
That is exactly what Senator DeMint's unanimous consent requests all
went to. They were all shot down. They were all denied by the majority.
I think it is a patently unfair process.
Let me ask this unanimous consent to at least allow us to digest this
brandnew mega amendment, and that is, when Senator Reid offers his
modified version of this amendment, which we expect will contain many
changes from yesterday, including serious and substantive changes, that
we have 5 hours as in morning business so that we are allowed to digest
the contents of this new amendment. That is the unanimous consent
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, but
before I do, I wish to respond. This is not a new bill, this so-called
700 pages. These are amendments packaged together which are
subsequently divided. These are amendments which have been around for a
substantial period of time. It is true some of them have been modified.
Senator Hutchison is modifying her amendment. However, we
[[Page S8532]]
have had an opportunity to know that and see it and can speak to it. So
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming the remainder of my time, Mr. President, I
think this is amazing. We are going to be presented with a brandnew
mega amendment fairly soon. It is going to be at least 373 pages, maybe
400 pages, and we are not going to be allowed to read it before this
Senate forges ahead debating and possibly voting on it.
I don't understand why we are not offered the opportunity to digest
this brandnew mega amendment. Senator Reid stood on this floor
yesterday and acknowledged it was only right and only fair to give us
an opportunity to digest his mega amendment yesterday. The problem is,
come this morning, that is out the window. There is a new mega
amendment. We have no idea what line has been changed, what paragraph
has been changed, what is new language, what is old language. We need a
reasonable opportunity to independently digest that amendment, not
simply take other people's summaries and word for it when we are
presented with this brandnew 400-page amendment.
I will be happy to yield to the majority leader on this point,
reserving the remainder of my time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sorry, I was in a briefing with Admiral
McConnell. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana said that minor changes have been made since he looked at the
legislation, which I assume he finished this morning sometime. He wants
to take a look and see what changes have been made; is that right?
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, yes, but to do that we have to read the
whole new mega amendment, I suggest to the majority leader. It is in
that vein and in that spirit that I offered the unanimous consent
request, that once the new mega amendment is presented, once that
happens, we be in morning business for 5 hours so we may be allowed to
read it.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to that.
I would say to my friend, however, that we would be happy to have our
staff--they are relatively simple amendments, some with simple word
changes--that we would be happy to have our staff, with his staff, show
what those changes are. There would be no need to read the whole bill.
If you read the whole bill, few changes have been made, and it would be
very apparent. So I am sure we can do that, and we can do that with
little trouble.
It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the time for morning
business has ended.
____________________