[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.

                          ____________________