[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8579-S8599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT--Continued
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have this matter before us. We are going
to do our very best to work through it. To remind everyone about this
legislation: This bill was taken up. We spent considerable days on the
Senate floor. Prior to doing that, of course, we had a debate last year
that encompassed much of what we have talked about this year. In
addition to that, though, during the time we pulled the bill from the
floor--this bill was pending here--of course, we brought that back with
the amendments that had passed.
In addition to that, with the concurrence of the President--because
the No. 1 complaint that folks on the other side had initially was
there was nothing that was going to take care of the border--$4.4
billion is now in this matter that is now before the Senate, $4.4
billion to strengthen the border. It does do that. Not only do we spend
the money, but we spend it well in this bill. There will be 370 miles
of fencing that will be paid for--will not be just talked about--300
miles of vehicle barriers that work extremely well, probably better
than the fences. It will now be possible to hire 20,000 new Border
Patrol agents. The are 105 ground-based radar and camera towers. There
will be a facility with detention beds for people who violate these
immigration laws. There will be a place to put them.
It toughens employer sanctions by creating a mandatory employer
verification system. It doubles criminal and civil penalties against
employers who hire unauthorized workers. Employers can be fined up to
$5,000 per worker for the first offense, up to $75,000 per worker for
subsequent offenses, or they can serve jail time.
[[Page S8580]]
Also, as it relates to employer sanctions, it strengthens document
integrity by requiring tamper-resistant biometric immigration
documents.
And, yes, as the Republican Secretary of Commerce has said, and other
administration officials have said, this is not amnesty. In fact, what
Secretary Gutierrez has said is that if we do not do something, there
is silent amnesty. We are going to move past that.
If someone wants to be on a pathway to legalization, they have a job,
they pay taxes, they stay out of trouble, they learn English, they pay
penalties and fines. They go to the back of the line, not to the front
of the line.
This legislation, very importantly, includes AgJOBS and ends the
exploitation of migrant farmworkers and provides them legal status.
The DREAM Act, which a number of individuals worked very hard on--but
no one harder than my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Durbin--the DREAM Act is to legalize immigrant children brought by
their parents to this country through no fault of their own and to
allow them to go to college or join the military.
So this is a nice piece of legislation. It is a step in the right
direction. We have had 36 hearings since 9/11, 6 days of committee
action, 59 committee amendments, 21 days of Senate debate, 92 Senate
floor amendments. We have been pretty thorough with this issue.
Mr. President, I yield to my friend for a question, and I would, of
course, regain the floor when he completes his question.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is it the Senator's understanding with
this legislation we will have virtually the strongest border in the
history of the United States of America in the Southwest? Is that the
Senator's understanding of the effect of this legislation?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely right. He has been
on the Judiciary Committee for decades in the Senate. He has been
chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration for decades. He has watched
what has gone on. We all recognize what happened in 1986 was not good.
It is my understanding the senior Senator from Massachusetts voted
against that legislation.
This legislation will correct that. This legislation will put 4.4
billion real dollars--not authorized--in direct funding. We got a
signoff from the President to do this. If we did nothing else, zero--
for those people who have concerns about this legislation--if we did
nothing else other than do this to secure our border, they should vote
for this legislation. But there is much more in it. I have given a
brief review of the good things in this legislation. It is a good piece
of legislation to correct the problem we have.
Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the Senator from
Massachusetts for a question.
Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator agree with the Council of Economic
Advisers that said passing this legislation will mean there is $55
billion--$55 billion--in fees and in fines that will be paid that will
be used to strengthen the border, to enforce worksite enforcement, to
make sure we are going to have a tamperproof card, which is essential
for any kind of immigration system; and that if this legislation does
not pass, that $55 billion is going to be paid for by the American
taxpayer? Does the Senator understand that is the implication of these
votes?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the people who are talking about the
negativity of this legislation I do not think understand how good it
is. I have talked about the $4.4 billion. But to think about that: $55
billion to go toward making our country safer--not our borders--our
country safer, and it is not paid for by the taxpayers. It will be paid
for by the people who are seeking to change their status.
I think it is a tremendous improvement, a step forward. I think it is
so important that the American people not hear all this ``some of us
have not been on the floor talking about this piece of legislation a
lot.'' It seems the voices we hear are people who are talking about the
process being unfair, that they have not had a right to be heard. Some
people complain, ``I thought the Senate was different than this.''
Mr. President, for my friends, some of whom are complaining who
served in the House of Representatives, this is a fair process. People
in the Senate have a right to speak. We have rules that after so much
time, when 60 Senators say you talked enough, debate comes to an end.
That is where we are in this matter. We are at a point where tomorrow
morning cloture will be invoked on this bill. It would be so important
that we do that. It would make our country a better country. We need to
do this; otherwise, our borders remain porous, with no end in sight.
Mr. President, what is now before the Senate?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Division III of the amendment is
currently before the body.
Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader
yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to in a minute.
Division III is an amendment offered by the senior Senator from the
State of Missouri. If anyone wishes to speak on that, what I would like
to do is ask--not like to do; I am going to do--I ask unanimous consent
that there be an hour of time, for debate only, on this amendment; that
following that time being used--it would be divided equally between the
two managers--following that time being used, I would have the right to
the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I say to the leader, I am going to make
about 5 minutes of remarks on it. I have not heard from many other
people. I think we could move things along without taking an hour. I do
not know if any of my colleagues on the floor wish to speak, but 20
minutes equally divided would--
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw my unanimous consent request. I
appreciate the suggestion of my friend from Missouri. I think it is a
constructive one. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that on the Bond
amendment there be 20 minutes equally divided, that this conversation
during this 20 minutes be for debate only, that the time be controlled
by Senator Specter--I am sure he will give his time to Senator Bond--
and Senator Kennedy on our side; and that following the using up of
that 20 minutes, I obtain the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, as I consider the
unanimous consent request, can I ask permission to pose two questions
to the distinguished majority leader?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have the floor; is
that right?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to my friend for a
question.
Mr. VITTER. I thank the majority leader. Two questions. One is on the
substance of the bill. In particular, on the point you were making
regarding funding for enforcement, are you aware of the CRS letter and
report which says that $4.4 billion, or at least much of it, can go to
the Z visa and the Y visa program, and that it is not clear at all that
the trigger provisions have to be met and that certification has to
happen before those funds can instead be used for the Z visa program
versus enforcement?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in response to my friend's question, first
of all, at least for the next 18 months, President Bush is our
President. His Cabinet officers--two of whom have been heavily involved
in this legislation, Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez--have
confirmed that this money--anything the President has power over
through his administration--this money will go to border security, the
things I have outlined earlier this afternoon: fencing, vehicle
barriers, 20,000 Border Patrol agents, 105 ground-based radar and
camera towers, detention beds--and a lot of detention beds,
specifically 31,000.
One of the problems we have had at the border is that as our valiant
Border Patrol agents grab these people coming across the border, they
have no place
[[Page S8581]]
to put them. They will now have 31,500--a pretty good holding facility.
It will alleviate many of the problems, many of the complaints that our
own Border Patrol agents have.
So in response to my friend from Louisiana, the administration
assured all of us this money will be used in a manner to make our
border more secure.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this June
25, 2007, Congressional Research Service memorandum printed in the
Record because it certainly states clearly that the trigger does not
have to be fully met before these funds can go to the Z visa program.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC, June 25, 2007.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Jim DeMint
From: Blas Nunez-Neto, Analyst in Domestic Security, Domestic
Social Policy.
Subject: Trigger language in S. 1639.
This memorandum is in response to your request concerning
the trigger provisions in S. 1639, the Comprehensive
Immigration Reform Act. Specifically, you asked CRS to
analyze whether the $4.4 billion that would be authorized by
the bill to fund the trigger provisions could be used to fund
the processing of Y and Z visas. As such, this memorandum
will be restricted to a discussion of Sections 1 and 2 of S.
1639. If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, I
can be reached at 7-0622.
Section 1 of S. 1639
Section 1 of S. 1639 would establish certain requirements
that must be met by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
before the programs in Titles IV and VI of the Act ``that
grant legal status to any individual or that adjust the
current status of any individual who is unlawfully present in
the United States to that of an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence'' can be implemented.
The Act would make exceptions to this requirement for: the
probationary benefits conferred by Section 601(h); the
provisions of Subtitle C of Title IV (relating to non-
immigrant visa reform); and the admission of aliens under
Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (as amended by S. 1639).
Prior to the implementation of the majority of the programs
in Titles IV and VI, the Secretary of DHS would be required
to certify in writing to Congress and the President that each
of the following measures (commonly referred to as
``triggers'') are ``established, funded, and operational:''
DHS has ``established and demonstrated operational control
of 100 percent'' of the land border between the United States
and Mexico.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has hired, trained, and
deployed 20,000 United States Border Patrol (USBP) agents.
CBP has installed 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles
of fencing, 105 ground-based radar and camera towers, and
deployed 4 unmanned aerial vehicles to the border.
DHS is detaining all removable aliens apprehended crossing
the border illegally, except as specifically mandated by
federal or state law or humanitarian circumstances.
Additionally, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would
need to have the resources to maintain this practice,
including the ability to detain 31,500 aliens on a daily
basis.
DHS has established and is using secure, effective
identification tools to verify the identity of workers and
prevent unauthorized aliens from obtaining employment in the
United States. These tools should include the use of secure
documentation that contains photographs and biometric
information on the work-authorized aliens and comply with the
requirements established by the REAL-ID Act (P.L. 109-13,
Div. B). Additionally, DHS would be required to establish an
electronic employment eligibility verification system capable
of querying federal and state databases in order to provide
employers with a digital photograph of the alien's original
federal or state issued identity or work-authorization
documents.
DHS has received, is processing, and is adjudicating in a
timely manner applications for Z non-immigrant status under
title VI of this Act.
The Administration would be required to submit a report
within 90 days of the enactment of S. 1639, and every 90 days
thereafter until the trigger requirements are met, detailing
the progress made in funding and satisfying each of the
requirements outlined above. The Governmental Accountability
Office (GAO) would be required to submit a report within 30
days of DHS' written certification that the trigger
provisions have been met concerning the accuracy of that
certification.
Section 2 of S. 1639
Section 2 would establish a new account within the DHS
appropriation known as the ``Immigration Security Account,''
and would endow this account with a transfer $4.4 billion
from the Treasury's general fund. These funds would be
available for use by DHS for five years after the enactment
of S. 1639 in order to meet the trigger requirements outlined
above.
Section 2 further stipulates that, ``to the extent funds
are not exhausted'' in carrying out the trigger requirements,
they would be available to be used for any of the following
additional activities: fencing and infrastructure; towers;
detention beds; the employment eligibility verification
system, including funds relating to the State Records
Improvement Grant Program outlined in Section 306;
implementation of the programs authorized by titles IV and
VI; and, other federal border and interior enforcement
requirements to ensure the integrity of the programs
authorized by titles IV and VI.
This language appears to require DHS to expend the funds in
the Immigration Security Account to meet the trigger
requirements in Section I prior to funding the additional
activities outlined above. DHS would be given the authority
to transfer funds from the Immigration Security Account as
needed to fund the trigger requirements and the additional
purposes outlined above.
DHS would be required to submit an expenditure plan for the
Immigration Security Account funds to the Senate Committees
on Judiciary and Appropriations within 60 days of enactment,
and annually thereafter, identifying: one-time and ongoing
costs; the level of funding for each program, project, and
activity and whether that funding supplements an appropriated
program, project, and activity; the amount of funding
obligated in each fiscal year by program, project, and
activity; the milestones required for the completion of each
identified program, project, and activity; and how these
activities will further the goals and objectives of the Act.
Lastly, DHS would be required to notify the Senate
Committees on Judiciary and Appropriations 15 days prior to
the reprogramming of funds from their original allocation or
the transferring of funds out of the Immigration Security
Account.
Conclusion
In response to your question concerning whether the $4.4
billion in funding appropriated under the Immigration
Security Account could be used to fund the processing of Y or
Z visas under Titles IV and VI of S. 1639, S. 1639 appears to
require that the trigger mechanisms be funded first.
Receiving, processing, and adjudicating applications for the
Z visa authorized by Title VI of the Act is one of the
trigger mechanisms outlined in Section I; this means that
funding from the Immigration Security Account could be used
for this purpose. Section 2(C) would allow DHS to expend any
funds remaining after the trigger mechanisms have been fully
funded on certain activities, including the implementation of
the programs authorized in Titles IV and VI of the Act. Thus,
it appears the funding for the Y visa (and other programs)
authorized by Title IV of the Act could only be made
available through the Immigration Security Account once the
trigger mechnisms had been met. However, S. 1639 does not
explicitly stipulate whether the certification required by
Section I would have to take place prior to funding being
made available for the additional purposes outlined in
Section 2(C).
Mr. REID. Mr. President, does my friend have another question?
Mr. VITTER. Yes. The second question for the majority leader is about
procedure. I think he understands my frustrations in terms of the
procedure we seem to be adopting. Does the distinguished majority
leader see any opportunity between now and tomorrow's key cloture vote
for me and like-minded Senators to offer our amendments on the floor
versus his handpicked amendments or to be recognized on the floor for
reasons of our choosing versus merely being recognized for reasons of
his choosing?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are in the Senate. We have certain
procedures and rules. I have tried to make things as family friendly as
possible; that is, Senate family friendly. I say to my friend, during
the early days of this legislation, amendments were offered by him and
others, some of which got votes, some did not. That is the way the
Senate operates. We are now in a process to work toward in the morning
when we have a cloture vote.
I think the process is very fair. The people who are managing this
legislation, directed by Senators Specter and Kennedy--two of the most
senior Members of our Senate--have been as fair as possible for our
getting where we are. There are amendments in this procedure we are
going through by people who have never supported the bill and do not
intend to support the bill. The amendments were arrived at in a way to
try to improve this bill. Will all amendments improve the bill? I guess
that is in the eye of the beholder.
I say to my friend, the procedure has been set here. I am sorry you
are concerned about it. I, frankly, though, think we have been very
fair. As a result of that, I would ask my friend if he has an objection
to Senator Bond's suggestion, that we debate this amendment of his--
that is debate only--for 20 minutes equally divided.
[[Page S8582]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving, again, my right to object, I
ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 additional minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Is this for debate only?
Mr. VITTER. For debate only.
Mr. REID. I would have the floor as soon as the minute is up; is that
right?
Mr. VITTER. That is correct.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, the Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Well, again, I take it from the distinguished majority leader that
his answer to my last question is no. Under this process, there will be
no opportunity for me and like-minded Senators to offer our amendments.
We will only consider his 26 handpicked amendments. Again, he put
together that list. He could have included some amendments of folks who
have serious problems with the bill. But there are no Vitter amendments
on the list. There are no Sessions amendments. There are no DeMint
amendments, no Cornyn amendments, no Dole amendments, no Bunning
amendments, and we could go on and on. Is that a fair process?
I also ask, is it a fair process for me to only be recognized on the
floor of the Senate during this momentous debate leading up to a
cloture vote only for purposes of the majority leader's choosing and
for no purposes of my own choosing?
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. So the record is very clear, Harry Reid, the majority
leader, did not pick the Republican amendments. The Republican
leadership picked those amendments. Senator McConnell and I worked the
process so that we would be back on the floor. It wasn't done by me; it
was done by us.
I would further say, these amendments, Republican amendments in this
bill, were not picked by me; they were picked by the Republican
leadership. I didn't stand over his shoulder. They chose what they
decided to do.
So I ask my friend if he has an objection to my request.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes before yielding
to the Senator from Missouri. I do so at this time before hearing from
the senior Senator from Missouri to comment about what the Senator from
Louisiana has had to say.
When he objects to the procedure where he doesn't have an opportunity
to offer amendments, I would remind the Senator from Louisiana and
everyone else that there was a time when we were searching for
amendments. I refer specifically to the Thursday afternoon before the
majority leader took the bill down on the cloture vote. We sat around
for hours looking for amendments, and the people who objected to the
bill would not offer amendments, nor would they let anybody else offer
amendments. That is why I supported cloture, first to protect the
rights of the minority to offer amendments, but then when they would
neither offer amendments nor let anyone else offer amendments, I voted
for cloture.
So when someone comes to the floor today and objects that they are
not being able to offer amendments, I remind them as to what happened
and what precipitated this unusual procedure.
As I said earlier, candidly, I don't like this, but it is the lesser
of the evils. We don't have any choice if we are going to exercise the
will of the Senate on this bill before the recess, because after the
4th of July recess, the Senate is going to be very heavily engaged in
appropriations bills and other matters.
Now I yield to the Senator from Missouri. How much time would the
Senator like?
Mr. BOND. To the distinguished ranking member of the committee, I
would gratefully appreciate 5 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. The Senator has it.
Mr. BOND. I thank Senator Specter and the majority leader for giving
me this time.
Mr. President, my part of the division of this amendment, simply
stated, will cut the path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
I think most people will recognize that citizenship is the most
precious gift America can provide. There are many of us who believe it
should not serve as a reward to those who broke the law to enter or
remain in this country. The path to citizenship is at the heart of the
amnesty criticism of this bill, which we are hearing very loudly in my
State and across the Nation. I believe cutting this path cuts out the
most severe complaint against this bill.
I supported the Vitter amendment to strike the entire amnesty
proposal for 12 million illegal aliens in the country, and that
amendment was rejected. Perhaps it was too broad. So my division of the
current amendment targets the most controversial aspect of the
proposal: the award of citizenship to those 12 million illegal aliens
who essentially will stay here--maybe take a 1-day trip--enjoy the
benefits of residence, and then can become citizens without having to
go through the process everyone else seeking to become a citizen has to
go through, which is applying in their home country, and waiting for
their time to arrive. Whatever we end up doing for those 12 million
illegal aliens, it does not, in my view, require the further step of
granting citizenship.
Those 12 million illegal aliens came to this country to work--to
work--without expectation of becoming citizens. We ought to understand
that. They came here to work, not to become citizens. Now, more legal
aliens will come to this country on a temporary basis to work without
the expectation of citizenship. There is no need to grant these people
the gift of citizenship when they came here to meet their economic
needs. The bill, as we know, puts the 12 million illegal immigrants who
comply with its terms on the path to citizenship. Illegal immigrants
who pay a fine and pass a security check, learn English, touch back to
their home country, and show employment can become legalized under the
new Z visa program.
After 8 years, formerly illegal immigrants, now legalized with Z
visas, may apply for legalized permanent residence, otherwise known as
a green card. As most of us already know, under existing law, once you
have had a green card for a certain number of years, you can apply for
and receive citizenship.
My division simply will cut off that path, automatically invoked once
a green card is bestowed, by preventing those formerly illegal
immigrants with Z visas from obtaining green card status and therefore
citizenship.
Specifically, my portion of the amendment would strike the contents
of section 602 on earned adjustment for Z status aliens, replacing it
with a prohibition on issuing an immigrant visa to Z nonimmigrants,
which is currently in the bill, and a prohibition on adjusting a Z
nonimmigrant to legalized permanent residency, or so-called green card
holders.
This proposal of mine would not change any of the bill's requirements
to obtain and keep a Z visa, such as a clean criminal record,
progressively better English competency, or continued employment. Nor
does my proposal change any of the rights afforded to Z visa holders,
including work, residency, and travel. Z visa holders would remain in
that status as long as they chose. Alternatively--and this is an
alternative--Z visa holders could abandon their status, return to their
home country and, if they choose, pursue legalized permanent residency
and citizenship from outside the country, as any other foreign citizen
could.
As I discussed above, I do personally support granting the rights I
enumerated for Z visa holders. I supported the Vitter amendment to
strip all the Z program provisions. But the Senate had its vote on all
of those provisions and we lost. This amendment is the next best thing.
Our immigration system is broken and must be fixed. I support a
strong emphasis on border security and enforcing the immigration laws,
but we should not hold border security hostage to amnesty. I voted
before and
[[Page S8583]]
will continue to vote to appropriate more money for funding for border
fencing, detention facilities, and border agents. I urge my fellow
Senators to support those ways to strengthen and protect our country
and our security, but reject rewarding illegal immigrants with
undeserved citizenship.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains on this side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. In light of the comments which have been made as to the
cost of this program, I think it is important to focus on the fact that
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made a finding that new
Federal revenue from taxes, penalties, and fees under the bipartisan
immigration bill will more than offset the costs of setting up any
immigration system and the costs of any Federal benefits temporary
workers, Z visa holders, and future legal immigrants under the bill
would receive. CBO estimates that increased revenue from taxes,
penalties, and fines under the bill will offset any estimated increases
of mandatory spending, such as emergency Medicaid, and produce a net
fiscal surplus of $25.6 billion over 10 years. The surplus will be used
to cover costs, including implementing the new program, and a
significant portion of the costs of better securing our borders and
improving interior enforcement through additional Border Patrol and ICE
agents.
I ask unanimous consent that this fact sheet be printed in the Record
at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Immigration Fact Check: CBO Report--The Rest of the Story
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds
that new Federal revenue from taxes, penalties, and fees
under the bipartisan immigration bill will more than offset
the costs of setting up the new immigration system and the
costs of any Federal benefits temporry workers, Z visa
holders, and future legal immigrants under the bill would
receive.
CBO estimates increased revenue from taxes, penalties, and
fines under the bill will offset any estimated increases in
mandatory spending, such as emergency Medicaid, and produce a
net fiscal surplus of $25.6 billion over 10 years. This
surplus will be used to cover costs including: the costs of
implementing the new program; a significant portion of the
costs of better securing our borders and improving interior
enforcement through additional Border Patrol and ICE agents.
CBO concludes temporary workers, Z visa holders, and future
legal immigrants under the Senate bill will have a positive
financial impact on Social Security and Medicare.
The temporary worker and Z visa programs will be funded by
fees charged to participants, and will not be subsidized by
taxpayer dollars.
Z visa holders and temporary workers under the Senate bill
must pay income taxes and are not entitled to welfare, food
stamps, SSI, or non-emergency Medicaid.
CBO concludes that with border and interior enforcement
provisions, this immigration bill will have ``a relatively
small net effect on the federal budget balance over the next
two decades.''
The bill authorizes more than $40 billion in spending.
Assuming all of this spending is appropriated, the bill would
produce a net fiscal deficit. However, more than three-
quarters of this spending is for enhancements to border
security and interior enforcement. These enhancements will
benefit the country as a whole and reflect costs that
taxpayers currently bear. In addition, revenues generated by
new workers under the bill will still cover about half of
these enforcement costs.
The bill is an improvement over last year's Senate bill (S.
2611), which CBO estimated would have required a taxpayer
contribution of twice the magnitude estimated for this year's
bill.
CBO estimates the bill ``would reduce the net annual flow
of unauthorized immigrants by one-quarter'' but admits ``the
potential impact of the border security, employment
verification, and other enforcement measures on the flow of
unauthorized migrants is uncertain but could be large.''
For the first time, CBO has found that the enforcement
provisions of an immigration bill are robust enough to reduce
significantly illegal immigration.
CBO notes that, while previous attempts to cut illegal
immigration have been relatively unsuccessful, the bill
``would authorize significant additional resources as well as
a comprehensive employment verification system to deter the
hiring of unauthorized workers.''
The report also notes that ``the implementation of the new
guest worker program and the provision of visas to the
currently unauthorized population could occur only if the
Secretary of DHS certifies'' that certain enforcement
measures are in place.
Background On The Bipartisan Immigration Reform Bill
The bill commits the most resources to border safety and
security in U.S. history.
Temporary worker and Z visas will not be issued until
meaningful benchmarks for border security and worksite
enforcement are met. These triggers include: increasing
border fencing, increasing vehicle barriers at the Southern
border, increasing the size of the Border Patrol, installing
ground-based radar and camera towers along the Southern
border, ensuring resources are available to maintain the
effective end of ``Catch and Release'' for every non-Mexican
apprehended at our border, establishing and putting in use a
reliable employment eligibility verification system.
The bill recognizes that enforcement alone will not work to
secure our border and meet the needs of the U.S. economy. The
temporary worker program will help immigration enforcement
officers control the border by creating a lawful and orderly
channel for foreign workers to fill jobs that Americans are
not doing.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. We have, as I understand, 10 minutes; is that correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes of that to the Senator from Colorado.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts,
Senator Kennedy, and I thank the Chair.
First, let me make a comment about the process here. On the other
side of the aisle we have heard people stand up and try to use every
procedural obstacle they can to kill the bill. They want to kill the
bill. What this Chamber ought to be about is trying to find solutions
to those huge problems that face our country, whatever those problems
may be, including the issue of immigration.
They have said this process is somehow unfair. Well, when I look at
how much time this Chamber has spent dealing with the issue of
immigration, I think there has been ample time for people to talk about
and debate this issue over the last 2 years. Since 9/11--since 9/11--
the Senate has had 36 hearings on the issue of immigration--36
hearings. Since 9/11, there have been 6 days of committee action with
respect to immigration. Since then, there have been 59 committee
amendments on immigration. Since then, there have been 21 days of
Senate debate--21 days of Senate debate on immigration, and 92 Senate
floor amendments--92 Senate floor amendments.
So for those who want to use procedure to kill this bill, they are
wrong in making the case that they have not been heard. There has been
ample time and opportunity to hear their arguments, and that has gone
on time and time again. It is time we in the Senate get down to
business and fix the problem of immigration for our country.
Secondly, this is a good bill. It may not be a perfect bill, but we
can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This bill toughens
border security. It does it by making sure that the $4.4 billion is
there for border security, 370 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle
barriers, 20,000 Border Patrol agents, and it goes on. It doubles
employer sanctions to make sure we can enforce our laws here in our
country through a variety of different means, and it also makes sure
that we develop a realistic and tough solution to the 12 million
undocumented workers who are here in America. Those who are part of a
``round them up and deport them'' crowd are being unrealistic because
of the costs involved and the difficulty in ultimately fixing the
problem we have. So we have come up with the right kind of solution
that punishes them, fines them, puts them to the back of the line, and
allows them to come out of the shadows of this society and into the
sunlight.
Finally, we can't forget the human values at stake in this debate on
immigration. In this picture we see Army SPC Alex Jimenez. He was
deployed for a second tour in Iraq. He has been missing in Iraq since
May 12. We have found some other of his personal belongings. But as he
is in Iraq missing in action, his wife was being questioned
[[Page S8584]]
by ICE in our country, in America, because her immigration status was
undocumented. Now, is that the American way? Is that the American way,
to have one of our soldiers missing in action in Iraq, with his wife
concerned about her immigration status here in the United States of
America?
What this demonstrates to me is we have a system of chaos and
disorder here in America. We need to fix the problem. This Chamber can
fix the problem. I hope we will stand behind the solution we are
bringing to the floor today.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Six minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Chair would let me know when I have 1 minute.
Mr. President, maybe we could take a moment and look at those words
that are written in stone right above the Vice President's chair there:
e pluribus unum, meaning one out of many. One out of many. That is the
desire, that is the hope, that is the dream of this country: one out of
many.
Many come from different traditions, backgrounds, and experience, but
we all are one country with one history and one destiny--not with the
Bond amendment, not with the Bond amendment.
The lines written at the Statue of Liberty are:
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning
to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my
lamp beside the golden door!
That is right, as long as those individuals are working and who will
never become citizens, who will never have that right to become a part
of the American dream, and once you stop working, out of the country
you go. Better gather up all of your belongings, because you are going
to be out of status, and out of status means you can be subject to
deportation.
You can imagine what that individual is going to say to their
employer when the employer says: Sure, you have worked 40 hours. You
work 50 hours, 60 hours, and bring your wife in and make sure she works
overtime this week as well; otherwise, you are out of status. You are
out of here.
That is what the Bond amendment would do to Americans. One America
that has rights and privileges, and to a second group in America they
say: Once we wring out of you the last bit of sweat that you can give
to some employer, you are finished, you are out of status, you are
deportable.
That isn't what this country is about. Maybe we don't like the fact
that people are not satisfied with the regime we have given or
recommended in this legislation that says: You go to the back of the
line. You came here because you wanted to work, because you wanted to
provide for your family; you came here, and you are at church on the
weekends; and you came here and your son or daughter is serving in Iraq
or Afghanistan. But we say: OK, you go to the end of the line, pay a
fee, learn English, and you have to demonstrate that you are working
and you are going to become a good American. That isn't good enough for
some.
Well, Mr. President, this creates the two Americas, which I think all
of us understand is not what this Nation is about. That is the result
of the Bond amendment, and I think it would be a major step backward.
We can imagine the resentment and hostility that will seethe and grow
with generations that come with their families when they see them
exploited. Talk about a danger and social dynamite in our society, this
amendment will breed that. We don't need that or want it, Mr.
President. We should not have it. I hope the amendment is not accepted.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield that time to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my colleague from Massachusetts made a very
powerful statement on behalf of those who came here, but he kind of
forgot an important distinction. There are those who come here legally
and those who come here illegally. We are talking about the illegals.
With the argument so forcefully and persuasively made by my colleague
from Massachusetts, if you took that argument to its end result, then
there should not be immigration laws. We should not have a process for
going for citizenship because anybody who wanted to come in could.
We have changed those laws. We have provided laws, and the people we
are talking about have come here illegally to work. If they wanted to
become citizens, there is a process. If they join the military, I
strongly believe they should become citizens.
But if they come illegally just to work, then they have not earned
citizenship like all of the others do, like my ancestors and the
ancestors of almost every Member of this body. We are all immigrants,
but we did not come here illegally and expect to get citizenship.
Therefore, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues, if you believe
there is a difference between people who come legally and people who
come illegally, to support the Bond division or proposal, vote against
the motion to table.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have broken borders. The 1986 act had
no enforcement mechanism, and that was under a Republican
administration. We are not bringing that up. We have 12\1/2\ million
immigrants. You can say we are going to ship them back, and it will
take $250 billion and 25 years to be able to do it. Buses will stretch
from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Are we going to do that?
No, we are going to take another route and just exploit them and not do
what is in this legislation, which makes them pay a fine and
demonstrate that they are going to work hard and learn English and
provide for their family and give something back to America, like they
do when their sons and daughters serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. You
will be able to stay here under the Bond amendment, but you are going
to work for an employer. When you get tired of working, we are going to
report to the INS that you are out of status, and out you are going to
go, lock, stock, and barrel. It will be just sweat labor here.
We are going to have two Americas. You may not like our solution, but
it is preferable to this alternative, which will create a permanent
underclass. I think it would be a mistake.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Is all time expired?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Akaka
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Martinez
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--41
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bond
Bunning
[[Page S8585]]
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McCaskill
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
NOT VOTING--3
Biden
Johnson
McCain
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friends, Senators Vitter and DeMint and
Sessions, have asked a number of questions during the day, and they are
valid questions, but I feel it is appropriate to respond. The way I
will respond now is with a letter I wrote in response to the letter
they wrote to me a few days ago. This letter is dated June 25:
Dear Senators Cornyn, Vitter, Dole, Sessions and DeMint:
Thank you for writing to me earlier today about my effort to
bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill back to the
Senate floor.
As you know, the Senate was unable to complete action on
the immigration bill earlier this month because a handful of
Senators, including several of you, objected to my repeated
efforts to call up further amendments to the bill. Following
the unsuccessful cloture vote on June 7, a group of Senators,
including Minority Leader McConnell, Republican Conference
Chairman Kyl and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Specter,
came to see me with a request that I bring the immigration
bill back before the Senate under a procedure under which a
large number of additional amendments could become pending to
the bill.
The so-called ``clay pigeon'' procedure is unusual, and I
would not have considered employing it in this instance
without the full support of Senator McConnell. It seems to me
appropriate for the two leaders to work together to overcome
the tactics of a small number of Senators in order to allow
the full Senate to debate an important national issue like
immigration. The White House made clear that it also favors
such a procedure, since the immigration bill is one of the
President's top priorities.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I intend
to ``shut off the debate'' and that the procedure in question
will ``silence amendments instead of facilitate their
debate.'' On the contrary, I am working to facilitate debate
on more than twenty additional amendments to the bill. In
contrast, several of you objected when I tried to call up as
few as five amendments during the earlier debate. The
American people can see clearly who wants to debate
immigration reform and who wants to shut off that debate.
Moreover, your claim that the Senate will only debate
amendments which I ``hand select'' is plainly untrue. The
dozen or so Republican amendments that will become pending to
the bill have been selected by the Republican leadership, not
by me.
In sum, I appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter
but consider them misplaced. Senator McConnell and I have
worked together in good faith to ensure a full, open and
productive debate on a bill of overriding national importance
that is supported by many Republicans and endorsed by
President Bush.
I signed it, Senator Reid.
Mr. President, what is the matter now before this body?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Division IV is now pending.
Mr. REID. What I would like to do, Mr. President--this is the Dodd
amendment--I would like to ask, as I did with the prior amendments that
have come up today, I ask unanimous consent for debate only; that we
start with 1 hour, equally divided, to debate this amendment, and then
following that, I would be recognized to do whatever I felt
appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. There is objection. And I would like to ask the majority
leader's----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Louisiana is not recognized. I have not
given up the floor.
Mr. President, it is my understanding----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader, please.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator from Louisiana objected;
is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from Louisiana object?
Mr. VITTER. I am reserving my right to object, and I was trying to
gain recognition, and I believe I did gain recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is acknowledged but not
recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Then I ask that the record be read with regard to whether
I was recognized or not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a misstatement that the Senator was
recognized. There is a unanimous consent request pending.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask my friend to object, if he cares
to, and then I would be happy to enter into a dialog with the
distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. There is objection. I would like to enter into that
dialog on two points.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I would be happy at this time
to yield to my friend from Louisiana for 2 minutes for the purpose of a
question, and then I, of course, would have the floor following the
termination of those 2 minutes.
Mr. VITTER. I thank the majority leader, and simply two points,
quickly.
First, with regard to the statement the majority leader just made and
the letter he read, let me end the debate. Let me stipulate for the
record that Senator McConnell is not being railroaded and President
Bush is not being railroaded. I am being railroaded and my allies on
the floor of the Senate are being railroaded. So we will end that
debate and stipulate that for the record.
Second, with regard to your last unanimous consent request, I would
love to agree to it if it can be modified so that my rights on the
floor of the Senate are also preserved--specifically so that I can be
recognized for 2 minutes for any purpose.
Mr. REID. I could not agree to that, Mr. President, so I would
certainly object to that.
Now, we had in the last amendment that was laid down, I thought, a
very sensible debate. People were able to offer their opinions as to
the merits. In fact, it was a good debate. Senator Bond was advocating
his position, and Senator Kennedy and others were advocating against
that. My question to the Senate now is, Could we have the same
procedure? I have suggested 1 hour equally divided, which would be for
debate only, and following that period of time, I would be recognized.
I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent that request be back before
the Senate at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. There is objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DeMINT. Will the leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am sorry. Oh, there you are. I would be happy to yield
for a question from my friend from South Carolina for up to 2 minutes,
and then I would get the floor back.
Mr. DeMINT. I thank the leader. I would just ask that I have the
opportunity, as you did, to read the letter that I wrote, along with a
number of other Members, in response to your response to us. It is just
a few paragraphs. I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to put in
the Record our particular response to what you read.
Mr. REID. Go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Thank you.
Dear Senator Reid:
Thank you for your response to our letter regarding your
unprecedented efforts to bring the immigration bill back to
the Senate floor after it was rejected three times by the
full Senate. We are writing to address several of the issues
you raised.
First, you said the Senate was not allowed to complete its
earlier debate on this bill because some of us objected to
your calling up further amendments. This is untrue. You
repeatedly objected to Republican amendments being offered
and insisted on selecting our amendments for us and for the
entire Senate. Consequently, we objected to all amendments
until we could get a full and fair debate. We did not believe
you had the right to hand-pick amendments then, and we do not
believe you have that right now.
Second, you said the abuse of Senate rules during this
debate is justified because it allows you to ``overcome the
tactics of a small number of Senators.'' This is also untrue.
We hope you realize that over 60 Senators voted against
cutting off debate because they opposed the substance of the
bill and the process you used to debate it. This is not a
small group.
[[Page S8586]]
In addition, your unprecedented abuse of the rules and
precedents of the Senate will negatively impact every Senator
by fundamentally reducing their rights to debate and to offer
amendments in the future. We believe you understand our
concern because just two years ago you said, ``the Senate
should not become like the House of Representatives, where
the majority manipulates the rules to accommodate its
momentary needs.'' If you go forward with this plan, history
will show that your decision not only impacted the ever-
growing number of Senators who oppose this immigration bill,
but hundreds of Senators in the years to come who wish to
make their voices heard.
Third, you repeatedly defended this process for debate by
blaming the Senate Republican leadership and the President
himself. While their cooperation may give you comfort, it
does not justify your actions. As Senate Majority Leader,
only you can execute this abusive practice. Only you can set
up a process that guarantees consideration of a hand-selected
group of amendments to buy support for a bill while at the
same time blocking all other amendments. You may want
Americans to believe this is a Republican bill, but your
willingness to use your office to force it through the Senate
shows precisely how much you support it and the extent you
are willing to go to pass it.
We respectfully ask you to reconsider your plan to force
this bill through the Senate. The American people do not
support this legislation and they do not support the heavy-
handed tactics being used to pass it.
That is signed by Senators Vitter, DeMint, Sessions, Elizabeth Dole,
and I think several others on another page.
I thank the majority leader for allowing us to read the letter.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record the letter I wrote, along with Senator DeMint's--
that both appear in the Record, Senator DeMint's first, with mine
following that.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 25. 2007.
Re: Unprecedented floor procedure will harm the United States
Senate as an institution, and will diminish the
senatorial powers of each individual member.
Majority Leader Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Majority Leader Reid: We write to express serious concern
regarding the potential use of an unprecedented procedure to
place the Senate immigration bill's floor amendment process
under your sole control. Our understanding is that you are
considering the introduction of a specially crafted amendment
with 20 or more carefully selected parts, known as a ``clay-
pigeon'' amendment. By exercising your priority right of
recognition, you can divide the amendment into its parts and
fill all available amendment slots with issues that you hand
select. All Senators who have amendments to the bill that
were not selected will be completely shut out of the floor
amendment process.
Because you have priority right of recognition over all
other Senators, you are the only member that can use a
``clay-pigeon'' amendment to limit the rights of the other 99
members in this body. To our knowledge, all previous uses of
a ``clay-pigeon'' amendment have been to preserve the rights
of minority members who sought votes on amendments the
majority wanted to block.
Your use of the ``clay pigeon'' to shut of the debate and
amendment process will be the first time in history this
procedure has been used to silence amendments instead of
facilitate their debate. Undoubtedly, such a procedure would
significantly undermine the U.S. Senate's reputation as the
greatest deliberative body on earth. We ask you to announce
publicly that you will not allow such a procedure to be
invoked on this critically important legislation.
This immigration legislation is critically important to the
American people. The public is becoming increasingly aware of
a number of serious problems with the bill, and, like all
legislation, this bill would only benefit from the sunlight
of a free, open, and transparent amendment process. Without a
fair, open, and robust debate to improve this bill, the
public's confidence in Congress will continue to erode.
Sincerely,
John Cornyn.
David Vitter.
Elizabeth Dole.
Jeff Sessions.
Jim DeMint.
____
U.S. Senate,
Office of the Majority Leader,
Washington, DC, June 25, 2007.
Hon. John Cornyn,
Hon. David Vitter,
Hon. Elizabeth Dole,
Hon. Jeff Sessions,
Hon. Jim DeMint,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Cornyn, Vitter, Dole, Sessions and DeMint:
Thank you for writing to me earlier today about my efforts to
bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill back to the
Senate floor.
As you know, the Senate was unable to complete action on
the immigration bill earlier this month because a handful of
Senators, including several of you, objected to my repeated
efforts to call up further amendments to the bill. Following
the unsuccessful cloture vote on June 7, a group of Senators
including Minority Leader McConnell, Republican Conference
Chairman Kyl and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Specter,
came to see me with a request that I bring the immigration
bill back before the Senate under a procedure under which a
large number of additional amendments could become pending to
the bill.
The so-called ``clay pigeon'' procedure is unusual, and I
would not have considered employing it in this instance
without the full support of Senator McConnell. It seems to me
appropriate for the two leaders to work together to overcome
the tactics of a small number of Senators in order to allow
the full Senate to debate an important national issue like
immigration. The White House made clear that it also favors
such a procedure, since the immigration bill is one of
President Bush's top priorities.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I intend
to ``shut off the debate'' and that the procedure in question
will ``silence amendments instead of facilitate their
debate.'' On the contrary, I am working to facilitate debate
on more than twenty additional amendments to the bill. In
contrast, several of you objected when I tried to call up as
few as five amendments during the earlier debate. The
American people can see clearly who wants to debate
immigration reform and who wants to shut off that debate.
Moreover, your claim that the Senate will only debate
amendments which I ``hand select'' is plainly untrue. The
dozen or so Republican amendments that will become pending to
the bill have been selected by the Republican leadership, not
by me.
In sum, I appreciate the concerns expressed in your letter
but consider them misplaced. Senator McConnell and I have
worked together in good faith to ensure a full, open and
productive debate on a bill of overriding national importance
that is supported by many Republicans and endorsed by
President Bush.
Sincerely,
Harry Reid.
____
U.S. Senate,
Senate Steering Committee,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your response to our
letter regarding your unprecedented efforts to bring the
immigration bill back to the Senate floor after it was
rejected three times by the full Senate. We are writing to
address several of the issues you raised.
First, you said the Senate was not allowed to complete its
earlier debate on this bill because some of us objected to
your calling up further amendments. This is untrue. You
repeatedly objected to Republican amendments being offered
and insisted on selecting our amendments for us and for the
entire Senate. Consequently, we objected to all amendments
until we could get a full and fair debate. We did not believe
you had the right to hand-pick amendments then, and we do not
believe you have that right now.
Second, you said the abuse of Senate rules during this
debate is justified because it allows you to ``overcome the
tactics of a small number of Senators.'' This is also untrue.
We hope you realize that over 60 Senators voted against
cutting off debate because they opposed the substance of the
bill and the process you used to debate it. This is not a
small group.
In addition, your unprecedented abuse of the rules and
precedents of the Senate will negatively impact every senator
by fundamentally reducing their rights to debate and to offer
amendments in the future. We believe you understand our
concern because just two years ago you said, ``the Senate
should not become like the House of Representatives, where
the majority manipulates the rules to accommodate its
momentary needs.'' If you go forward with this plan, history
will show that your decision not only impacted the ever-
growing number of senators who oppose this immigration bill,
but hundreds of senators in the years to come who wish to
make their voices heard.
Third, you repeatedly defended this process for debate by
blaming the Senate Republican Leadership and the President
himself. While their cooperation may give you comfort, it
does not justify your actions. As Senate Majority Leader,
only you can execute this abusive practice. Only you can set
up a process that guarantees consideration of a hand-selected
group of amendments to buy support for a bill while at the
same time blocking all other amendments. You may want
Americans to believe this is a Republican bill, but your
willingness to use your office to force it through the
Senate, shows precisely how much you support it and the
extent you are willing to go to pass it.
We respectfully ask you to reconsider your plan to force
this bill through the Senate. The American people do not
support this legislation and they do not support the heavy-
handed tactics being used to pass it.
Sincerely,
Jim DeMint.
Jeff Sessions.
David Vitter.
[[Page S8587]]
Elizabeth Dole.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will say that his letter makes our
argument. Of course there were more than 60 who voted against
proceeding on that legislation. That is precisely why we are back on
this legislation, because a significant number of those 60 came to me
and Senator McConnell and said that we need to bring this bill back and
we need to have amendments heard. So I think the letters speak for
themselves.
Finally, let me say this. Would the Senator from Louisiana or South
Carolina--I asked for 1 hour--would they agree to 30 minutes equally
divided on this amendment, for debate only?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. Reserving my right to object, if I can inquire of the
distinguished majority leader and explain to him, through the Chair,
that my objection does not rest on the time period; it rests on my
rights on the Senate floor being shut down.
So I would again ask if the unanimous consent request can be modified
to allow me to exercise my rights on the Senate floor--specifically, to
have a mere 5 minutes on the Senate floor to be recognized for purposes
of my choosing, not merely for purposes of the majority leader's
choosing?
Mr. REID. So is there objection?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the leader so modify his request?
Mr. REID. No, I would not do that.
Mr. VITTER. Regrettably, I must continue my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, my objection to the request comes from the fact that
we are here as a result of the Republican leadership coming to me. And
I am glad to be here, but we are here because, as everyone will recall
in the first go-round, we had seven votes from the minority. We needed
more than that. Everyone realized that. And in an effort to do that, we
have these amendments which have been brought before this body. It is a
fair process.
I just think my friends from South Carolina and Alabama and Louisiana
have made their point, and I think we have made our point, also. This
is a process which we are trying to move. Why are we trying to move it?
Because immigration is in need of fixing.
Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator from Arizona wishes
to ask me a question, and I will be happy to yield to my friend for a
question.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have a question for the majority leader. Do
I understand that currently the pending business before the Senate--or
will be pending--is a motion to table the Dodd amendment; is that
correct?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend that we have really no alternative. That
is the process we are in. So the answer is, I would think there would
be a motion to table made if we can't resolve this debate issue.
Mr. KYL. Also, just for the purpose of propounding a unanimous
consent request, Mr. President, my thought would be, given the fact we
are about to vote on an amendment, it would help the body, obviously,
to have a brief explanation of that amendment. I wonder if the body
would agree to give the Senator from Connecticut 5 minutes to explain
his amendment, for 5 minutes on this side, for me or----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona does not have the
floor and cannot make that request.
Mr. REID. I would be happy, Mr. President, because of the suggestion
of my friend from Arizona, to make a unanimous consent request, so that
people better understand this amendment, that the Senator from
Connecticut be recognized for 5 minutes, the Senator from Arizona be
recognized for 5 minutes, and then following that, the Senator from
Pennsylvania would be recognized for purposes of making a motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. Reserving my right to object, may I ask if that can be
amended to allow the Senator from Louisiana 30 seconds--30 seconds--to
gain the floor for purposes of my own choosing rather than the majority
leader's choosing?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
Mr. REID. Is there an objection to the request I made?
Mr. VITTER. Regrettably, because I am being shut down, I will
continue my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Vote on Division IV of Amendment No. 1934, as Modified
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the Dodd amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--41
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Inouye
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Biden
Johnson
McCain
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The majority leader.
Division V, withdrawn
Mr. REID. The next amendment up is the Kyl amendment. Is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Division V.
Mr. REID. Is that Kyl? I withdraw it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The division is withdrawn.
Mr. REID. What is the next amendment pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Division VI.
Division VI of Amendment No. 1934, as Modified
Mr. REID. Madam President, we have been moving through these. We have
a number more to go. What I have tried to do----
Mr. VITTER. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. REID. No, I do not. I yield to my friend for a question, if it is
short. Does my friend have a question?
Mr. VITTER. Yes. I would like to ask the leader if what happened,
where apparently we withdrew one of the subamendments, takes unanimous
consent or any consent?
Mr. REID. No, it does not take consent.
Mr. VITTER. I would like to ask for clarification from the
Parliamentarian and what the effect is on that amendment?
Mr. REID. I would direct a question to the Chair. It is my
understanding that I have the right to withdraw that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does have a right to withdraw
division V.
Mr. VITTER. Thank you for the opportunity to ask the question.
Mr. REID. Madam President, during the time that we were in the well
during the last amendment, I was told by my friend from New Jersey that
he had a question he wanted to ask me. We want to move on. I certainly
will try to get a time agreement on it. We haven't been too successful
on that in the past. I would be happy to yield to my friend
[[Page S8588]]
from New Jersey for a question if, in fact, he still has one.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the majority leader yielding for a
question. My question to the majority leader is----
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, can we have order? These amendments are
important and the Members deserve to hear the Senator.
Mr. MENENDEZ. My question to the majority leader is: Is it his
understanding that the next amendment that is up in the divisions is
the Menendez-Obama-Feingold amendment that would, in essence, give the
right to U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents the ability to be
able to claim their family under the new point system that is
envisioned under the bill, where that point system would, in fact,
allow for up to 10 points, out of a 100-point score, to be subscribed
on the basis of----
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Regular
order.
Mr. MENENDEZ. With an understanding that in doing so it does not
guarantee a family member ultimately being able to achieve a visa but
would, in fact, give them a fighting chance under the 100-point system
to at least have the ability----
Mr. VITTER. Regular order. The Senator is not asking a question.
Mr. MENENDEZ. And would also give them the wherewithal at least to
have a fighting chance to come in under our visa system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey must ask a
question.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I was asking a question, Madam President. I am asking
the majority leader for his understanding.
Mr. REID. I understand the question. I will respond to it right now.
He started it, if you read the Record, he asked me if I understand what
his amendment does. I do understand what it does.
A brief summary, Madam President. This legislation comes up with a
point system. The point system----
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, regular order. The Senator is not
responding to a question, he is making a statement; he is engaging in
debate.
Mr. REID. Madam President----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. REID. I have a right to make a statement. Back to where I was
before I was so rudely interrupted.
Madam President, I understand the question. In this legislation which
has been worked on, as I have indicated, 36 hearings, 6 days of
committee action, 59 committee amendments, 21 days of Senate debate, 92
floor amendments, one of the questions a number of us had and have is:
What does it do for family reunification? And no one has spoken out
more on that issue than the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
The question he asked me is about the amendment. Now a point system
has been set up where the process has been used over these many months
coming up with this legislation to give various points to different
parts of the immigration process.
Now, what my friend from New Jersey and others feel would be
appropriate is that out of a 100-point system, 10 points would be
allocated to someone for family reunification. I understand the
amendment. There is more to it than that, but that is a synopsis. That
is what the amendment does. It recognizes the importance in America of
family. It recognizes the importance in immigration of family.
Madam President, I move to table the pending amendment. I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing
to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--40
Akaka
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Inouye
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Schumer
Stabenow
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Biden
Hagel
Johnson
McCain
Sanders
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, under the order that is before the body,
there is time that has been allocated to the distinguished junior
Senator from Alabama. I would ask the Chair how much time he has under
the order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-seven minutes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I had a conversation during the vote with
the Senator from Alabama. I ask him at this time, would this be an
appropriate time for him to use the 47 minutes or any part thereof?
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will be pleased to use 30 minutes
now, and will reserve the remainder of my time, if I could.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Alabama be allowed to speak, for debate purposes only, for the
next 30 minutes, and that following that, I be recognized to obtain the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we are in the process of dealing with
a very important issue. A number of our colleagues--in some ways
dismissive, I think, of the concerns of the American public--refer it
to as an emotional issue. I think it is more than an emotional issue. I
think it is a serious issue that requires our serious concern. It
requires that this great Senate, on a matter of tremendous importance
to our Nation and to our constituents, do it correctly.
I love my colleagues who met to try to write this bill. I believe
their hearts were correct. But they are not law enforcement officers.
They have not investigated and prosecuted cases. They apparently were
inundated with information and ideas, and so forth, from special
interest groups and others.
I have said I wish the American people had been in the room. I wish
the head of our Border Patrol association had been in the room or
perhaps the chief of Border Patrol during President Reagan's tenure or
the chief of Border Patrol during former President Bush's tenure. All
of those people, including the current chairman of the association of
retired Border Patrol officers, have criticized this bill in the most
severe manner, saying it is a slap in the face to people who followed
the law, saying it will not work, saying the 24-hour name check is not
going to work at all, and will not provide security to our country,
that it will actually be a benefit to terrorists. I am not saying this;
they said this. It would be a benefit to terrorists. One called it the
``Terrorist Relief Act,'' or something to that effect.
What I want to tell my colleagues is, the professionals who deal with
these issues absolutely oppose this legislation. Now, we can dismiss
that. Maybe you talk to somebody from some news outlet or talk to
somebody from some business group or some activist organization, and
maybe you have a different view. But the people who enforce the laws
every day oppose this legislation.
[[Page S8589]]
They do not believe it will work. I suggest it will be demoralizing to
them.
Our own Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the legislation. We
have them for our use. We rely on that organization. It operates under
the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority leader here,
and all of us. It is a bipartisan group. But the Congressional Budget
Office has analyzed our current law and concluded that if current law
is not changed, we will have 10 million more illegal immigrants in our
country in the next 20 years. We have 12 million now, maybe 20 million.
But we would have 10 million more under current law. They say if this
legislation were to be passed, we would have some reduction of
illegality at the border--not much--but we would have an increase in
visa overstays because we have so many temporary guest worker programs
going on, and the net result would be that this Nation would only have
a reduction of 13 percent in the illegal flow of immigrants into our
country. Indeed, there would be 8.9 million more persons illegally in
our country 20 years from now than today.
Now, what does that say about my good and well-intentioned colleagues
who are trying to tell us all that the thing is going to work, that if
you do not pass this amnesty, if you do not give these benefits to
people who came here illegally, then you will not get enforcement?
Well, we are not getting enforcement, everyone. The bill does not
provide enforcement--not in any significant way that would allow us to
proceed effectively.
We had hearings in our committees that dealt with the question of the
impact of large numbers of foreign workers on the wages of American
workers. It is not, I think, subject to dispute. At the current rate we
are going, at the current rate of immigration, legal and illegal, wages
of lower income Americans are being adversely affected. Professor
Borjas at Harvard, who has written a most authoritative technical book
on immigration at the Kennedy School, has said it has brought down the
wage of low-income workers 8 percent. That is a lot. That is a lot, an
8-percent decline in wages. In many areas, it could be even greater
than that, I suspect. It is pretty understandable that it would happen.
If you bring in more cotton in this country, if you bring in more
cotton, you will have a lower price for cotton. If you bring in corn,
you will have a lower price for corn. If you bring in large amounts of
labor, it will pull down the value of a working man's hourly wage. So I
am concerned about that.
My colleagues have said a number of times that by getting this--Madam
President, there is a little bit of a buzz.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. SESSIONS. So we have a number of questions that cause us concern.
I talked about wages. Let me mention the rule of law.
Our Nation is founded on law. Edmund Burke, when he talked about
reconciliation between the Colonies and the King, asked that there not
be a war against the Colonies. He said: They follow us in law. He even
said: I understand the Colonies have more copies of Blackstone's
Commentaries on the law than they have in England.
We have always been a nation of laws. It is our strength. We should
not create a system that will not restore that law, even at our
borders; otherwise, we are going to have a difficult situation.
Under this bill, we carefully looked at the number. I don't think
anyone will dispute it. The level of legal immigration will double--
double the amount of legal immigration. That is a number I don't think
most Americans understand. I think they are worried about the current
level, which is at about the highest this Nation has ever had--highest
by far in real numbers we have ever had--and it is going to double,
without any reduction in illegal immigration. So this is a bargain, a
grand bargain we should not take. If we do, I think we will regret it
because the American people are not going to be happy with us.
By the way, the polls continue to show that our constituents
overwhelmingly oppose this legislation. A decent respect for our own
constituents, even if we might think them wrong, on an issue of this
importance where they are so decidedly hostile to this legislation
suggests we ought to slow down and listen to them and talk with them
about what their concerns are and make sure when we go back home and
campaign and seek reelection, we can look them in the eye and say: I
heard your concern, and I fixed that concern, or I believe the
legislation answers your concern.
But here we have a completely new bill that has been plopped down on
the Senate floor, first with over 700 pages, and then I guess last
night there was a 370-page amendment, and that had so many errors in it
that even the sponsors themselves have plopped down another amendment
of 403 pages. They want to vote that through right away. I don't think
that is what we owe our constituents.
They say: Well, we have had 2 years of debate, and all that. We had a
bill last year that was quite different from this one. It had some
things in it better than this one. I thought this year's bill was going
to be better, and said it was better several times, but it actually--as
I have studied it, I am not sure it is any better. It is weaker in a
number of different areas. For sure, it is weaker in a number of
different areas. So that is a matter we should consider as we go
forward with this legislation. I think we ought to give careful
attention to what we are doing.
I want to address one more very important matter that very fine
Senators have raised. They have suggested one of the best things that
is going to be happening with this legislation is everybody will be
given an identification, and the Nation will be safer for that.
Therefore, even if the bill is not perfect and has lots of problems,
let's vote for it anyway because it has that in it. Let me share some
thoughts with my colleagues on that issue.
Michael Cutler, who is a retired INS--Immigration and Naturalization
Service--senior agent, participated in a press conference last Thursday
at the National Press Club. It focused on the grave threat to national
security the immigration bill represents. He also authored an op-ed in
the Washington Times last Friday entitled ``Immigration Bill a No Go.''
This is an experienced INS agent. He focused on the security question
in the bill: Does it make us safer? This is what he said. I doubt our
good friends who met in secret and wrote this bill asked his opinion,
but this is what he says after reading it:
If a person--
Let me quote:
If a person lies about his or her identity and has never been
fingerprinted in our country, what will enable the
bureaucrats at the USCIS--
That is who will be checking his 24-hour background----
the bureaucrats at USCIS to know that person's true identity?
If the adjudicators simply make a fictitious identity through
a computerized database, they will simply find the name has
no known connection to any criminal or terrorist watch list.
What is the value of that? Remember, we are talking about a
false name. There is absolutely no way this program would
have even a shred of integrity and the identity documents
that would be given these millions of illegal aliens would
enable every one of them to receive a driver's license,
Social Security card, and other such official identity
documents in a false name. Undoubtedly, terrorists would be
among those applying to participate in this ill-conceived
program. They would then be able to open bank accounts and
obtain credit cards in that false name. Finally, these cards
would enable these aliens to board airlines and trains even
if their true names appear on all of the various terrorist
watch lists and no-fly lists. That is why I have come to
refer to this legislation as the ``Terrorist Assistance and
Facilitation Act of 2007.''
Do you get it? Unless you already happen to be fingerprinted and you
come here and you are a known terrorist and you give a false name with
some false electric bill, they will give you this temporary visa and
you get an ID then. Before, if you are illegal, you would have a hard
time getting a bank account or a Social Security card or a driver's
license. Now, you are given one. You can travel all over the country
with no problems. That is what he is saying. So in many ways, it is
going to facilitate a dangerous situation.
How about this gentleman, Mr. Kris Kobach, a former Department of
Justice attorney under Attorney General Ashcroft, who specialized in
the Department of Justice in terrorism and immigration issues and who
has spoken out often and is a college professor
[[Page S8590]]
now. He agrees with Mr. Cutler. He posted an article on the Heritage
Foundation Web site titled ``The Senate Immigration Bill: A National
Security Nightmare.'' He says:
The bill will make it easier for alien terrorists who
operate in the United States by allowing them to create
fraudulent identities with ease. Supporters of the Senate's
comprehensive immigration reform bill have revived it under
the guise of national security. However, the new public
relations campaign is a farce. The bill offers alien
terrorists new pathways to obtain legal status, which will
make it easier for them to carry out deadly attacks against
American citizens. The top priority in this bill is extending
amnesty as quickly and as easily as possible to as many
illegal aliens as possible. The cost of doing so is to
jeopardize national security.
That is Mr. Kris Kobach who has testified before Congress a number of
times, former Assistant Attorney General specializing in immigration
and national security issues.
So I urge my colleagues to look at this bill because we don't need to
pass a piece of legislation that we can't defend to our constituents,
that we cannot tell our constituents with confidence it will make them
safer. It will reduce illegality dramatically at the border 13 percent;
80, 90, 95 percent is the goal we should have to reduce illegality, and
that should be the beginning point. We can get there. We don't need to
pass a piece of legislation that is going to double the legal flow, not
reduce the illegal flow, and end up having the wages of Americans
further diminished by this incredibly large flow of low-skilled, low-
wage workers. We don't need to further erode the morale of our Border
Patrol officers and erode American confidence in the rule of law.
Those are my thoughts. I hope we will give this serious consideration
as we make our judgment tomorrow about whether we should proceed. If we
don't proceed tomorrow, that is not the end. Of course, we are going to
consider this bill and this issue--continue to consider it. Polling
data suggests the American people, what they want us to do, is to take
incremental steps focusing on enforcement.
Why don't we just do that? We might could get that done. That would
be what I suggest.
Also, one more time, I urge my colleagues to give the most serious
consideration to the procedure by which we are moving forward with this
legislation. People have said it is unfair. I think it is unfair, but
it is more than unfair. It is a historic departure from the traditions
of the Senate. The leader of this Senate is arrogating to himself the
ability to approve every single amendment that is voted on. No
amendment can be voted on the leader does not approve. That is the way
this clay pigeon has been set up. That has never been done before. Any
Senators willing to come down here and battle and hold out and not give
up can get his amendments up and voted on. I think it is a matter that
most of us haven't fully comprehended yet. I think Senators who are
proud of the great ability of individual Senators, when they feel
strongly about an issue--it doesn't happen often--but they can stand up
and make sure their amendments get voted on, and they have an
opportunity to speak.
Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and note the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding that the
distinguished Senator from Alabama has about 27 minutes in the time
that has been ordered; is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has 28 minutes.
Mr. REID. I am also of the understanding, having spoken to the
ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, that Senator
Sessions is at this time willing to give him part of the time he has
been allocated for debate only on this matter.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be recognized for
up to 10 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will yield up to 10 minutes to the
Senator from Iowa.
Mr. REID. Yes, Madam President.
Mr. SESSIONS. I understand this would be time allotted to me. The
Senator does still have his entitlement to speak on his amendment when
that appropriate time comes.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the Senator from Iowa is going
to take 10 minutes of the time of the Senator from Alabama for debate,
and if we have an opportunity to debate his amendment, of course, he
can speak on it.
Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, if this is a unanimous
consent request, I have comments to make in opposition to the amendment
of the Senator from Iowa and would like to be afforded an opportunity
to do so. So if the agreement is to afford time to one side, but the
other side won't get an opportunity to speak, then I will object to
that. I hope we can work something out where I would get at least 5
minutes. The Senator from Iowa should have time to debate his
amendment, but I want time to respond.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I can handle the issue dealing with the
Senator from Iowa because that is simply time the Senator from Alabama
is giving him. As to the amendment itself, I know how strongly the
Senator from Arizona feels on this amendment. He has explained that to
me. He knows what we have been going through trying to get people the
opportunity to speak. The only thing I can do now is ask unanimous
consent that the time of the Senator from Alabama, which is 10 minutes,
be allocated to the Senator from Iowa for debate only, leaving the
Senator from Alabama, at a subsequent time, 17 or 18 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, under the circumstances
and the nature of the amendment, I am prepared to yield 5 minutes to
the Senator from Iowa from the balance of my time.
Mr. REID. I think that is very fair. I thank the Senator from
Alabama.
I propound a unanimous consent request that the Senator from Iowa be
recognized for 5 minutes from the time given to the Senator from
Alabama and 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona for debate only.
Mr. SESSIONS. No, I object, Madam President. If the Senator is going
to be speaking on his amendment, it is not mine. I don't like his
amendment. I am going to give him 5 minutes out of courtesy. I am
disappointed that the Senator from Arizona would not be able to
respond.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't care if I speak. Let's forget all this. I can
speak some other time. I would like to say why I ought to have debate
on my amendment. If I don't talk about the substance of the amendment,
can I talk about why I ought to be able to bring up the amendment?
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Iowa looks at me. The majority leader
won't allow you to speak. I was trying to give you 5 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Would you mind if I said why I ought to be able to
bring my amendment up?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Iowa, I have been trying all day to
allow people to speak to their heart's content. I have had objections.
At this time, I have no objection to you speaking for a reasonable
period of time and the Senator from Arizona speaking for a reasonable
period of time. You can talk about your amendment, and he can talk
about why he doesn't like your amendment. Forget about the Senator from
Alabama. He reserved his 28 minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be recognized for
up to 10 minutes for debate only, and following his remarks, I ask that
the Senator from Arizona be recognized for up to 10 minutes for debate
only and following their remarks, that I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 10 minutes and then the
Senator from Arizona for up to 10 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you. I am not going to talk about the substance
of my amendment. I want to remind people before the amendment comes up
that, No. 1, I was promised by the Senator from Pennsylvania and, in
turn, his talking to the Senator from Massachusetts, that I would have
an opportunity to offer an amendment. Now I
[[Page S8591]]
have that opportunity to offer the amendment, so that promise has been
kept. I have tried to clear it with my Republican colleagues who have
been objecting all afternoon so that they would not object to my
efforts to offer and debate my amendment. So I hope you realize it
doesn't do much good to make a promise for me to offer my amendment if
I don't have an opportunity to debate the amendment. That is the first
point.
The second point is that I should not even be here having to offer
this amendment. If you go back to that Thursday afternoon in April when
there were rump sessions in S. 219, I was invited by some of the people
to the rump session who were working on this compromise--to come in and
offer a compromise on Social Security identification, employer
identification, or verification. I went to that meeting and sat there
for a long time and explained a compromise. I had no objections to the
compromise at that particular time, but 3 weeks later, the document
comes out and it is not the compromise I had presented, which I assumed
was agreed to. That doesn't surprise me because going back to January
or February, Senator Kyl had met with me and some other people, because
this is in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee--we have
jurisdiction over IRS and over the Social Security system--saying that
they were very strongly in favor of having something that went way
beyond protecting the privacy of Internal Revenue tax records and
Social Security information and were hellbent on going down a route of
giving the Department of Homeland Security any sort of information they
want, not within the tradition of protecting the privacy of income tax
records.
So that is why my amendment is being offered, because I am going back
to that compromise which I presented to the committee in the rump
session back in April which I thought was OK. I find out now that it is
not. That is why I am going to offer my amendment.
How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). Seven minutes 50 seconds.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to speak generally about the
legislation before us.
There is some concern that I have expressed--not so much on the floor
but in other public comments I made--that I am one of about 22 or 23
Members of the Senate who were here in 1986 when we passed amnesty, as
is in this bill as well. I was one of those Senators who voted for
amnesty at that particular time. At that particular time, we had maybe
1 million to 3 million people cross the border illegally and who were
here illegally. We all thought--and there have been plenty of
references to statements made in the Congressional Record 20 years
ago--that if we were to adopt amnesty, it would settle this problem
once and for all, do it once and for all. You know, I believed that.
But do you know what I found out maybe 5 or 10 years ago? When you
reward illegality, you get more of it. Now the guesstimate is that we
have 12 million people here illegally. They are not illegal people, but
they came here illegally.
I think I have an obligation to consider the votes I made before and,
if they are wrong, not make that mistake again. You know, it is a
little like the chaos you would have if you didn't respect and enforce
red lights and stop signs. You would have chaos at intersections and
accidents. Wherever you don't enforce the rule of law, those are the
things that happen. You need social cohesion, and social cohesion comes
from respect for the rule of law in our country.
So it seems to me that, as we go down this road, what we ought to do
is concentrate on legal immigration, the reforms we are bringing to the
H-1B program, the reforms we are bringing in the way of a temporary
worker program. People would rather come here legally rather than
illegally, I believe. I know it is not very satisfying to people to
hear that we have 12 million people in the underground. The point is
that if people could come here legally to work, they would soon, one by
one, by attrition, replace people who are here illegally, I believe.
I am not one who wants to make that mistake again. That is why I am
weighing very heavily the issue of what we do with amnesty or what
other people who don't like the word ``amnesty'' would say is earned
citizenship, guest worker program, those sorts of things that are
covering up really what we are doing.
I say if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a
duck. If it looks like amnesty, it is amnesty. That is the bottom line.
We ought to learn the lesson that in 1986 it didn't work. I don't think
it will work now. I am 73 years old, so obviously I am not going to be
here 20 years from now when we have another immigration bill. But I
should not make that problem so that a successor of mine has to deal
with 25 million people being here illegally as opposed to the 12
million now or the 1 to 3 million before.
I yield the floor and whatever time I didn't use I will retain or
whatever is done with the surplus.
Mr. REID. Why don't you just yield it back?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Arizona is to be recognized at this point for 10 minutes.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I be notified after 5 minutes so I might
yield time to Senator Kennedy?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from
Iowa. He was absolutely assured by people on our side that he would be
allowed to bring up an amendment, and I am glad we have been able to do
that. He certainly should be afforded that right.
With that said, however, I can't match his opposition to the bill
with his amendment. If you want to assure that the bill will not work,
then adopt the Grassley amendment. It substitutes the existing title
III in the bill, which is a very good title to ensure employee
verification, with a potpourri of provisions that, frankly, look a lot
like the status quo and will not ensure that employees are adequately
checked to ensure they are entitled to be employed.
For example, the Grassley amendment provides that none of the current
employees are checked. In other words, the only people who have to be
checked are future employees, so all the people working today,
including all the illegal immigrants working today, don't have to be
checked under the Grassley amendment.
Secondly, amazingly, the only way to physically verify that the
person seeking the job is, in fact, the person with the identity
entitled to be employed is with a photograph. Nobody is proposing that
we fingerprint people to get jobs, and that leaves the photograph as
the best identity document. The bill provides that either a passport
with a photograph or a driver's license with a photograph be the
document. You have to verify that the person standing in front of you
is the person to whom the document has been issued and the rightful
owner of the Social Security number he has given you.
The Grassley amendment does not require that a photograph be used in
the identification process. This is one of the first things that was
recommended by the 9/11 Commission, to have a secure document with a
photograph with which you can confirm identity.
Third, and this is amazing, and I honestly don't understand why this
would be in the Senator's amendment, but it gives foreign temporary
workers the right to file legal complaints against employers who hire
American workers instead--basically, to file a discrimination complaint
based upon the fact that they were not hired.
Current law does not permit temporary workers to file these
complaints. The basic bill would not allow workers to file these
complaints. But the amendment does this by eliminating current laws
that prohibit temporary workers from filing a discrimination claim
based on immigration status.
Next, one of the key things we did after 9/11 was to ensure that
Government agencies could share information with each other. When we
determined the best way to ensure people are legally eligible to work,
we quickly understood that we had to have sharing of information from
the Social Security Administration, from the Department of Homeland
Security, even, in some cases, from the Internal Revenue Service.
Unless these agencies are able to
[[Page S8592]]
share the information with each other when we access the databases, we
are not going to know for sure whether the individual is entitled to be
employed. What the amendment provides is that after 5 years, the
information-sharing provisions are sunsetted.
None of these are really calculated to ensure that we can have a good
employee verification system. They undercut that system and, as a
result, they would weaken our ability to ensure employee eligibility to
work.
Finally, in some cases, we have employers who are violating IRS rules
because they don't report income. The underlying bill allows the IRS to
identify those employers and go after them. This is one of the things
the American people are upset with today, that we are not going after
employers who are violating the law, who commit tax violations in
hiring unlawful workers. The underlying bill allows us to do that. The
amendment doesn't allow us to do that, and I don't understand why.
The bottom line is that title III of the underlying bill is a very
good, strong provision supported on a bipartisan basis to ensure that
we can verify the eligibility of workers to be employed.
Title III, unfortunately, is weakened dramatically by this Grassley
amendment which would in all the five ways I indicated undercut our
ability to verify employment.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield to the
Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has explained
the technical provisions of this legislation very well, but I want to
underscore a very important difference. And that is how each system
will treat their workers.
If there is some glitch in the system, under the legislation before
us, under the existing law, the worker should be able to continue to
work and can continue to work until ultimately there is a determination
by a court that the worker should not be confirmed. The decision being
appealed is called a nonconfirmation. If there is a glitch in the
system--and we understand there are going to be a number of glitches in
the system, but this was a provision that we took a considerable amount
of time to make sure that workers who are going to be caught up in the
system, if there is a glitch in the system, they will still be able to
continue to work until there is a real indication of trouble. They will
continue to work, unlike the proposal of the Senator from Iowa.
The amendment of the Senator from Iowa says that if there is found to
be some glitch in the system, they will have a legal case, but they
will have to demonstrate--this is the test: that the government's
conduct has either been negligent, reckless, willful, or malicious. The
employee will have to demonstrate one of those qualities, which means
they have to go out and get a lawyer. They will be let go, and they
will have to go out and get a lawyer and go through the whole legal
process in order to recover some damages. There is a large difference.
I believe the underlying provisions which have been included--this is
it, and I agree this is one of the most important provisions in the
legislation. We want employer enforcement. That has to be a part of it.
Tough borders that are going to be enforced and legality in the
workplace, and the only way we are going to have legality in the
workplace and also protection for the workers is the underlying bill.
The bill requires SSA to begin issuing only fraud-resistant, tamper-
resistant, wear-resistant Social Security cards within 2 years. This
will help prevent counterfeiting and identity theft by undocumented
workers. The Grassley amendment has no comparable provision. It only
requires that the worker give an employer a Social Security number
rather than presenting an actual card.
If we are serious, and I think all of us in this body, are serious,
about dealing with the undocumented, we have to have tough worksite
enforcement, and we are also going to have to have tamper-proof cards.
I think this moves us in that direction in a very positive and
important way.
As I say, most importantly, at a time that we are going to go into
this transition, how are the workers going to be treated, and really
there is a dramatic difference between how those workers are going to
be treated under the proposal we put forward under the existing bill
and under the Grassley amendment.
For these reasons, I hope his amendment will not be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa retains 3 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have 3 minutes left, I have been told.
First of all, I think the Senator from Massachusetts was doing a good
job reading from a letter Secretary Chertoff sent to me. I sent back a
rebuttal letter, and I would like to provide the letter for the Senator
from Massachusetts to read. It is a point-by-point rebuttal of what is
wrong with Secretary Chertoff's analysis of my amendment.
One of the criticisms that Senator Kyl gave against my amendment is
we are not going to force employers to look through 160 million workers
to find illegal workers. Let's look at the basic legislation. The
legislation legalizes people who are here already illegally. So if they
are illegally working, and this bill legalizes them, don't you see how
ridiculous it is that we are going to tell people to go out and find
people who are here illegally when the bill has already legalized them?
The second point is that we eliminate the requirement of a photograph
for identification. My amendment requires every U.S. citizen to present
a passport or driver's license and every noncitizen to present a legal
permanent resident card or work authorization card. Each of these
documents is required to contain an individual's photograph.
Moreover, my amendment requires workers to submit their passport
number, driver's license number, or employment authorization number in
addition to their Social Security number through the employment
verification system. Without that information, there is no guarantee
that Homeland Security will be able to contact the issuing agencies or
determine which document was issued. This is the very same problem that
has prevented Homeland Security from utilizing Social Security
Administration data in the past.
My amendment further requires the Social Security Administration, the
State Department, and the State departments of motor vehicles to
establish a reliable and secure method to allow the Department of
Homeland Security to verify the identity document of each issuing
agency.
On another point Senator Kyl made saying it eliminates after 5 years
the information sharing among Government departments, which is critical
to making this work, a sunset is standard practice when we compromise
the protection for the individual taxpayer, that the taxpayer's income
tax information will be private so that, like President Johnson and
President Nixon, it cannot be used to violate your privacy for
political reasons. That is why that law was passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
several letters regarding this issue.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 22, 2007.
Hon. Michael Chertoff,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: We are again disappointed that you have
written another erroneous and misleading letter regarding our
amendment to Title III of the immigration bill. However, we
appreciate the opportunity to explain why our amendment
provides a more cost effective and administratively feasible
employment verification system.
(1) Your letter states that ``employers have no independent
obligation to resolve no-match problems . . . (DHS) could
only ask employers to resolve no-match problems.'' This
statement reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of our
amendment. Our amendment establishes criteria to determine
mandatory participation in the employment verification system
with respect to current workers. Current workers identified
by DHS would be verified through the employment verification
system in exactly the same manner as newly hired workers.
The purpose of an employment verification system is to
prevent unauthorized workers from using fraudulent Social
Security numbers (SSN) or misusing legitimate SSNs to obtain
employment in the United States. This goal is accomplished by
comparing the name and SSN submitted by the worker to the
records maintained by the Social Security Administration.
Regardless of whether
[[Page S8593]]
this comparison occurs when a worker is hired, or when a
worker's W-2 is processed, the result is the same.
Our amendment requires every employer to verify every newly
hired worker through the employment verification system.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, more than 60
million workers would be verified each year through this
process. In addition, under current tax law, every employer
must submit an annual W-2 for every worker. According to
Social Security Administration data, more than 160 million
workers will be verified each year through this process.
Requiring every employer to verify every worker through the
employment verification system would merely duplicate the
results of verifying every worker through the W-2 process. If
the names and SSNs match in one case, there is no reason to
believe they won't match in the other case. In order to avoid
needless duplication, our amendment allows DHS to obtain data
through the W-2 process and thereby identify every worker
using a fraudulent SSN, or misusing a legitimate SSN. The
employers of these workers would be required to utilize
the employment verification system to verify each of these
workers.
(2) Your letter states that under the version of Title III
supported by DHS ``we will be relying on electronic
verification . . . [to prevent] . . . illegal employment.
Your amendment does not require equivalent security
measures.'' This statement reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of our amendment. Our amendment requires
workers to submit their Passport number, driver's license
number, or employment authorization number (as applicable
based on citizenship status) in addition to their Social
Security number through the employment verification system.
It further requires SSA, the State Department, and state DMV
agencies to establish a reliable and secure method to allow
DHS to verify the identity documents issued by each agency.
Thus, DHS will be able to determine when identity documents
are fraudulent or when more than one person is using the same
legitimate document.
Our amendment differs from the approach envisioned in the
version of Title III being supported by DHS. The approach
being advocated by DHS would require employers to verify the
photo on every identity document presented by every employee
at the time of hiring. This represents an unnecessary and
overly burdensome requirement for workers and employers. Our
amendment would allow DHS to generate a tentative
nonconfirmation whenever the identification number does not
match agency records, or when the same number appears
multiple times. In such cases, the employee would be required
to resolve the tentative non-confirmation with the issuing
agency.
(3) Your letter states ``The need for no-match information
. . . will not disappear in five years.'' Our amendment
provides DHS with the ability to independently verify SSNs,
state driver's license numbers, and U.S. Passport numbers.
There is no reason to believe continued access to SSA no-
match data will be necessary once DHS has fully implemented
the employment verification system. However, should continued
access be needed, we would fully support an extension of the
5-year limitation, provided DHS meets its obligation to
protect and properly use this confidential taxpayer data.
(4) Your letter states that we ``. . . misunderstand the
current bill . . .'' There is no misunderstanding on our
part. The current version of Title III supported by DHS
states ``An employer may not terminate an individual's
employment solely because that individual has been issued a
further action notice . . . [ or] . . . reduce salary,
bonuses, or other compensation . . .'' The comments in our
previous letter referred to individuals who are issued a
``final nonconfirmation,'' not a further action notice.
Moreover, your letter states ``. . . the current bill allows
workers to earn a living while they appeal what they believe
to be erroneous eligibility determinations.'' This statement
is true only with respect to a further action notice. The
current version of Title III supported by DHS does not
require employers to pay workers who appeal a final
nonconfirmation. In contrast, our amendment protects workers
throughout the entire appeals process.
(5) Your letter states we oppose the requirement that
employers resolve no match letters ``. . . because the
letters are not sent to every single employer.'' That is not
correct. We oppose the no-match requirement because it is
ineffective and unenforceable. DHS would have no knowledge of
who received a no-match letter. Moreover, employers could
continue to rely on the current flawed I-9 process to
``resolve'' their no-match letters. Our amendment would allow
DHS to readily identify every single employer with a no-
match, and target those with the biggest problem for worksite
enforcement or accelerated participation in the employment
verification system.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to explain
our amendment. We stand ready to work with you to create a
more effective and feasible verification system.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley.
Max Baucus.
Barack Obama.
____
Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2007.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I received your June 20, 2007 letter
regarding my concerns that your amendment to the immigration
reform legislation represents a serious step backward in our
worksite enforcement effort. I must respectfully disagree
with your statement that your amendment ``would improve Title
III.'' On the contrary, reading your response to my letter
underscores my initial concerns, for the following reasons:
(1) Your letter acknowledges that under the Grassley-
Baucus-Obama amendment, employers need not use the Electronic
Employment Verification System (EEVS) to find out whether
their existing employees are working legally except ``when
there is evidence to suspect unlawful employment.'' Under
your amendment, employers have no independent obligation to
resolve no match problems, and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) could only ask employers to resolve no-match
problems if DHS already had enough information to begin an
investigation. But if DHS has enough information to begin an
investigation, it should not ask employers for their help,
The value of verification is that it generates evidence of
unlawful behavior. It is odd to say that DHS must have
evidence of potential wrongdoing before utilizing the best
means of uncovering this wrongdoing in the first place.
DHS has no intention of asking employers to act as police.
The EEVS is a convenient nondiscriminatory but powerful tool
that will bring violations to DHS's attention without
imposing heavy burdens on employers. We should not impose
arbitrary limits on its use.
(2) As you observe, the current bill requires that only
secure licenses and identification cards be accepted after
2013. In the meantime, we will be relying on electronic
verification as the principal means of identifying identity
fraud and preventing illegal employment. Your amendment does
not require equivalent security measures. In view of the
widespread industry specializing in production of fake
documents, I believe that your amendment keeps us and
innocent employers vulnerable to such documents and weakens
the protections against identity theft.
(3) We all agree that DHS should have access to the ``no-
match'' information that both the current bill and your
amendment allow. Our difference arises from the fact that the
Grassley-Baucus-Obama amendment arbitrarily cuts off that
access after five years. As you will recall, our recent
enforcement efforts have shown that fake IDs and made-up
Social Security numbers are rampant in many industries. The
need for ``no-match'' information to combat such fraud win
not disappear in five years.
We should not exempt employers from enforcement of
immigration laws because we fear that they may refuse to
comply with tax law. I am confident that the vast majority of
employers want to follow the law. Indeed, our enforcement
system rests on the expectation that individuals--employers
and employees alike--will obey the law. For those few who may
flout the law, however, the tight response is more
enforcement, not less.
(4) I believe your letter misunderstands the current bill
in one important respect. The current Title III would not
allow employers to cut off pay to workers who seek
administrative review of their further action notices. In
fact, Title III expressly prohibits businesses from doing so,
or from taking other adverse actions against an employee who
received such a notice.
I am pleased to correct this misunderstanding.
I am also surprised that you appear to prefer a system
requiring that a worker who receives a nonconfirmation notice
be fired first, and that he pursue his administrative and
judicial appeal while unemployed, with the distant prospect
of getting back lost wages. By contrast, the current bill
allows workers to earn a living while they appeal what they
believe to be erroneous eligibility determinations.
(5) We agree that the Grassley-Baucus-Obama amendment does
not require employers to act on the no-match notices they
receive. You argue that the law should not require employers
to resolve no-match letters because the letters are not sent
to every single employer. But the letters are sent to the
employers with the biggest no-match problems. And your
alternative proposed solution is far less effective. Your
amendment proposes that all of the no-match data be sent to
DHS, which would then have to repeat everything that the
Social Security Administration has already done to locate and
send notices to employers whose employees may be violating
the law.
In sum, I committed to inform the bill managers if I became
concerned about an amendment that would threaten the
enforceability and/or workability of the underlying bill A
good enforcement program benefits the vast majority of law
abiding employers by ensuring that they are not competitively
disadvantaged by the unscrupulous few. Unfortunately, I
continue to believe that your amendment will perpetuate the
kinds of obstacles that have burdened effective enforcement
of immigration law at the worksite since 1986.
I appreciate your genuine concern about this matter and
please know that I am always glad to meet and discuss these
concerns.
Sincerely,
Michael Chertoff.
[[Page S8594]]
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Michael Chertoff,
Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: We are extremely disappointed that your
June 19th letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter contained a
number of erroneous and misleading allegations regarding our
amendment to Title III.
Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
``(1) Job Security for Criminal Aliens . . . existing
workers are never checked out . . .''
Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
The pending immigration bill requires all employers to run
all existing workers through the verification system within
three years. This is an onerous and unnecessary requirement
given the fact that these workers are already subject to the
annual wage reporting (no-match) process. Our amendment would
require employers to run existing workers through the system
only when there is evidence to suspect unlawful employment.
To accomplish this goal, DHS would be given access to Social
Security and IRS data to identify all mismatched, duplicate,
deceased, minor children, or non-work SSNs.
Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
``(2) Loophole for Fake Documents . . . present any
driver's license . . . not required to . . . provide a second
document . . . eliminate grant program . . .''
Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
The pending immigration bill says state driver's licenses
and ID cards that are not REAL ID compliant will no longer be
accepted beginning in 2013. The language also gives the
Secretary of DHS the authority to modify state driver's
licenses and ID cards prior to the implementation of REAL ID.
Finally, it authorizes--but does not fund--grants to States
for REAL ID. Congress can only fund REAL ID though the
appropriations process. Our amendment avoids imposing an
arbitrary deadline and allows the continued use of state
driver's licenses and ID cards (subject to new verification
procedures with the state DMVs) in recognition of the fact
that final implementation of REAL ID remains in doubt.
Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
``(3) Arbitrary End to Information Sharing . . . cuts off
all information sharing after five years . . .''
Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
The pending immigration bill provides DHS with access to
Social Security and IRS data. Our amendment would sunset
these provisions after five years, subject to a future
extension, as is standard practice when allowing access to
private taxpayer data for the first time for a new purpose.
Moreover, the long-term value of SSA and IRS data for
immigration enforcement is highly suspect. Once employers
realize their W-2s will be used against them, they may simply
stop filing suspect W-2s.
Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
``(4) Punishing the Enforcers Instead of the Violators . .
. individuals . . . can seek compensation . . . even if the
initial error was caused by the individual and not the
government . . . ''
Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
The pending immigration bill prohibits employers from
firing workers for as long as DHS wants to review a worker's
appeal of a final nonconfirmation notice. This would force
employers to keep workers on their books, but allow them not
to be paid, while the government attempts to find and correct
the mistakes in its databases. This will put legal workers in
a financial bind while providing no incentive for DHS to
improve the system. Under our amendment, illegal workers who
receive a final nonconfirmation notice would be immediately
fired. But, legal workers who are erroneously fired could
recover lost wages, if they did not cause the error, and the
government was at fault.
Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
``(5) Ignoring the Government's Best Evidence of Illegal
Workers . . . Grassley-Baucus-Obama . . . would not . . .
require employers to resolve no-match letters''
Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
The pending immigration bill requires employers to retain
SSA no-match letters and document steps taken to resolve
them. But, SSA sends no-match letters only when there are
more than 10 employees whose names and numbers do not
match, and the total number of no-matches exceeds 0.5
percent of total employees. Thus, an employer with 11 no-
matches and 2,199 employees would get a letter, but an
employer with 11 no-matches and 2,200 employees would not.
No-match letters are completely at the discretion of SSA.
SSA does not inform DSH which employers receive a no-match
letter. Under our amendment, DHS is granted access to all
no-match data. They can use this data to identify
employers for worksite enforcement or to require early
participation in the verification system with respect to
new or existing employees.
Letter to Senators Kennedy and Specter:
``(6) No Improvement to IRS Authority... Grassley-Baucus-
Obama drops all of these important provisions ...''
Grassley/Baucus/Obama Amendment:
The pending immigration bill would increase IRS penalties
for filing incorrect information returns and authorizes--but
does not fund--additional IRS personnel to investigate
incorrect returns. This is a poorly concealed effort to
recruit IRS personnel to do the job DHS is supposed to do:
enforce our immigration laws.
We strongly support creating an effective, mandatory
employment verification system for all employers to verify
the legal status of their workers. But the design,
implementation, and oversight of the system as proposed in
the pending immigration bill are flawed in several respects.
Our amendment would improve Title III by (1) protecting
U.S. citizens and legal workers from errors in the system;
(2) protecting the states from excessive federal intrusion;
(3) protecting the rights of all legal workers; (4)
protecting the privacy of all Americans; and (5) improving
our ability to prevent unauthorized employment while
minimizing the burden on workers and employers.
We hope that your future correspondence to the Hill will
acknowledge these much needed improvements and avoid the
erroneous and misleading allegations contained in your
previous letter.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley.
Max Baucus.
Barack Obama.
____
Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, June 19, 2007.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: I promised at the start of this
process that I would tell you if the bill you were
shepherding became so unworkable or unenforceable that it
threatened to worsen our current illegal worker problem. In
general, the Senate has avoided workability and
enforceability pitfalls, but for the first time I must write
to you to express concern about a proposed amendment that
would be a serious step backwards in our enforcement effort.
Enforcing the law means more than border enforcement. We
have to shut off the job magnet that pulls illegal aliens
into our country. The current bill's Title III wi11 do just
that. It creates a much stronger, more effective worksite
enforcement system than the one that exists today. This
system will stop illegal aliens from getting hired, and it
will punish employers who make illegal workers part of their
business model. By contrast, the Grassley-Baucus-Obama
Amendment will significantly weaken the current Title III,
with the result that illegal workers wil1 still be drawn
across our borders by the lure of easy employment.
These are just some of the specific examples of
deficiencies in the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment that will
lead to a lack of enforceable worksite enforcement:
(1) Job Security for Criminal Aliens--Current Title III
requires mandatory verification of all existing workers.
Under the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment, existing workers
are never checked. So serious criminals, and other aliens who
are not eligible for legal status, would be able to hide in
their existing jobs indefinitely, without ever having to
prove that they are authorized to work in this country.
(2) Loophole for Fake Documents--Current Title III requires
that new hires show a secure identification card to keep
their jobs. Under the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment, in
contrast, most new hires will be able to present any driver's
license, whether or not it meets federal standards for secure
documents. And unlike the current Title III, individuals
presenting a non-secure license will not be required by the
Amendment to provide a second document to establish that they
are authorized to work in the United States. Finally, the
Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment eliminates a grant program to
reimburse States for the costs of improving license
security. The result will be to continue a flourishing
market for fake documents and identity theft.
(3) Arbitrary End to Information Sharing--The best way to
catch unscrupulous employers who do not verify their
employees is to compare Social Security records to the
records of the EEVS. Current Title III allows DHS to do so.
But the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment cuts off all
information sharing after five years. Grassley-Baucus-Obama
tells unscrupulous employers that, after five years, when the
government agencies stop talking to each other, they can
return to ``business as usual,'' employing unauthorized
workers.
(4) Punishing the Enforcers Instead of the Violators--Many
Americans want tough financial sanctions and strict liability
on employers who hire illegal workers. So far as I am aware,
none of them want to impose sanctions and no-fault liability
on immigration enforcers. But that is precisely what the
Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment would do. Under the Grassley-
Baucus-Obama Amendment, any individual who wins his judicial
appeal against the government's determination of his
employment eligibility can seek compensation for lost wages--
even if the initial error was caused by the individual and
not the government. Moreover, in a poorly concealed effort to
make DHS avoid tough enforcement, the Grassley-Baucus-Obama
Amendment actually proposes that any award come from DHS's
enforcement budget. This would actually make the enforcement
climate worse than it was after the 1986 law.
(5) Ignoring the Government's Best Evidence of Illegal
Workers--Every year, SSA sends out millions of ``no-match
letters'', indicating that an individual's name and social
security number do not match. These letters are a powerful
indicator that the individual may not be work-authorized. The
current bill gives DHS authority to require that employers
take action to resolve ``no-match letters.'' Grassley-Baucus-
Obama would not.
[[Page S8595]]
It would encourage employers to continue to turn a blind eye
to evidence that their workers may be illegal.
(6) No Improvement in IRS Authority--Nothing worries an
unscrupulous businessman more than the prospect of a tax
audit. The IRS has great investigative skills; it also has
authority to punish immigration violators who file incorrect
information about their employees, but this authority does
not have the deterrent effect it should because the current
fines are so low. Title III fixes this problem by raising the
fines and creating a dedicated Criminal Investigation Office
to investigate tax violations related to immigration
violations. Grassley-Baucus-Obama drops all of these
important provisions.
Title III is the foundation of comprehensive reform. We
will not reform our immigration system. nor will we shut off
the stream of illegal immigrants pouring across our border,
without addressing the force that draws them here in the
first place. We need better documents and stronger tools to
uncover identity fraud. The current version of Title III
gives us these tools; by contrast the Grassley-Baucus-Obama
Amendment eliminates needed tools and allows unscrupulous
businesses to continue to freely hire illegal workers.
Finally, weak enforcement is bad for business. Legitimate
businesses that comply with the law will be undercut by
competitors who disobey that law if enforcement is lacking. I
ask that you help to defeat the Grassley-Baucus-Obama
Amendment, not just to help our enforcers but to give a fair
shake to those who want to obey the law.
In the end, the Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment
unfortunately fuels public skepticism about whether
enforcement will work or political forces will frustrate
serious efforts to bring employers into compliance with the
law. I reject that view. We must enforce the law, and with
your help we will. I urge you to join with me in opposing the
Grassley-Baucus-Obama Amendment.
Sincerely,
Michael Chertoff.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Isn't it true that the Finance Committee estimated that
under these systems, there were going to be a certain number of
mistakes that were going to be made?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, we presented that to you that day in April----
Mr. KENNEDY. That is exactly right. It is significant numbers, in the
hundreds of thousands, as I remember. It is in the hundreds of
thousands of mistakes that are going to be made as they set this up. I
am just wondering about the protection of those workers. In our bill,
we provide that those individuals should be protected because they can
keep their jobs while they appeal a nonconfirmation. I am wondering if
the Senator will relate to us how he thinks----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute yielded by the
Senator from Arizona. Who yields time?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Iowa have an additional minute to respond, and then I will take my last
minute.
Mr. REID. For debate only.
Mr. KYL. Yes, for debate only.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the only response I can give to the
Senator from Massachusetts is that we have worked very hard in the
Finance Committee to make sure that private income tax information and
private Social Security information is protected. It seems to me that
is basic to a system of taxation that is voluntary compliance.
We have made some compromises of that, some use of that under very
strict guidelines in the past. We presented it to the Senator's
committee on this bill the same as we have in the past. The 5-year
sunset is one example. Certain penalties for misuse of the information
is another one.
It seems to me that is very basic if we are going to have confidence
in our tax system and protect the privacy of the individual taxpayer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
Three quick things. The amendment of the Senator from Iowa eliminates
both the requirement of an employee to show an official identification
card with a photo in State or Federal databases and the DHS-run photo
match system that is the ultimate protection against document fraud in
the workplace. You have to be able to do that match.
Second, the Senator from Iowa says why would we want to check workers
after we have made them legal? Well, the whole point is to be sure we
don't have anyone continuing to work here illegally.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of organizations that oppose the Grassley amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The following organizations are publicly opposing the
amendments listed below.
Grassley
American Farm Bureau Federation
Compete America
Information Technology Industry Council
TechNet
Essential Worker Immigration Coalition
Alabama Employers for Immigration Reform
Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform
Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform
Federation of Employers and Workers of America
Florida Employers for Immigration and Visa Reform
Nevada Employers for Immigration Reform
New York Employers for Immigration Reform
Oklahoma Employers for Immigration Reform
Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy
Texas Employers for Immigration Reform
Tennessee Employers for Immigration Reform
American Health Care Association
American Hotel & Lodging Association
American Nursery & Landscape Association
American Subcontractors Association
Associated General Contractors
California Landscape Contractors Association
Federation of Employers & Workers of America
Florida Transportation Builders Association
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
International Franchise Association
National Chicken Council
National Club Association
National Restaurant Association
Outdoor Amusement Business Association, Inc,
PLANET
Society of American Florists
US Chamber of Commerce
Baucus
American Farm Bureau Federation
Coalition for a Secure Drivers License
Essential Worker Immigration Coalition
Alabama Employers for Immigration Reform
American Health Care Association
American Hotel & Lodging Association
American Nursery & Landscape Association
American Subcontractors Association
Associated General Contractors
California Landscape Contractors Association
Federation of Employers & Workers of America
Florida Employers for Visa and Immigration Reform
Florida Transportation Builders Association
Georgia Employers for Immigration Reform
Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
International Franchise Association
National Chicken Council
National Club Association
National Restaurant Association
Outdoor Amusement Business Association, Inc.
PLANET
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as one of the managers of the bill, I
will speak very briefly, and then I will move to table the Baucus
amendment; and after conferring with the majority leader, it is my
understanding that we are going to proceed without further debate to
move to table two additional amendments this evening. All efforts to
reach some reasonable time agreements have proven to be of no avail.
I think it is worth stating again that when those object that they
are not able to offer their amendments, we had time before the bill was
taken down a week ago Thursday for people to offer amendments and the
objectors did not offer amendments or even allow others to offer
amendments. So they have had their opportunity, which has fomented the
current situation.
I wish to respond briefly to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, who
made a comment that the Senator from Pennsylvania had not kept a
promise.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I said you would have to have debate in order to keep
your promise or it doesn't mean anything.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, I am not going to ask the record be read back. If
the Senator from Iowa said I did not keep
[[Page S8596]]
a promise, I am glad to hear that. I don't make promises, I follow
procedures. The Senator from Iowa wanted an amendment and he got an
amendment, but I didn't make any promises. And if I made a promise, I
certainly don't break promises.
When an amendment is offered and you seek a time agreement around
here, you have to have unanimous consent to get a time agreement. If
you don't have unanimous consent, somebody gets the floor and can
filibuster and can talk forever and the majority leader was not going
to put this body in a position to have someone get the floor and talk
forever. So that the Senator from Pennsylvania doesn't control
unanimous consent agreements.
The Senator from Iowa and I have worked together now for 27 years
plus. We came to the Senate on the same day. Regrettably, he had an
edge in seniority because he had been in the House. They didn't base it
on State size. We have had no disagreements up till now, and I am glad
to see we don't have a disagreement now.
Mr. GRASSLEY. We don't.
Mr. SPECTER. I would add one addendum, Mr. President, and that is
that I have to differ with him when he says he will not be around here
20 years from now. He is only 73 and Strom said he is a young fella.
Vote on Division VII of Amendment No. 1934, as Modified
Mr. President, I move to table the Baucus amendment, and I ask for
the yeas and nays.
Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know this is not debatable, I understand
that, but we are going to move to table Baucus, Grassley, and Domenici.
I ask unanimous consent that the first vote be the standard time; the
next two votes be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. Reserving my right to object, if I could simply make a
clarification about a statement that has been made.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to
table.
Well, first, we have a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request?
Mr. VITTER. I object.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table has been made. Is there a
sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDIENT OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Ensign
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Schumer
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--52
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Brown
Bunning
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Coburn
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Dorgan
Enzi
Feingold
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Inhofe
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Vitter
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Biden
Johnson
McCain
The motion was rejected.
Mr. REID. Madam President, as I indicated earlier, I am going to move
to table the--oh, we can't do that. We are stuck on this amendment. Why
don't we agree to the amendment now and move on to something else?
Mr. VITTER. I object.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the distinguished junior Senator from
Oklahoma has indicated he wants to speak for up to 10 minutes as in
morning business. I ask unanimous consent that he be so recognized and
that I be recognized following his 10 minutes. I have explained to the
Senator from Oklahoma, and he understands, this is for debate only.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator
from Nevada allowing me the time. I think it is really important for us
to ask ourselves what the test is before us today in the Senate.
As many of you know, I spent the last 2 weeks recuperating from a
surgical illness, and I got to see--from a perspective of watching
television on all the different channels, reading all the different
papers--there was a recurring theme that I noticed that came through
from all across this country. It did not matter what part of the
country. It did not matter who was saying it, no matter whether they
tend to lean liberal or they tend to lean conservative. That theme is
this: We have failed to instill the confidence in the American people
in the Congress that we are about doing what is in the best long-term
interest of our country.
It is not about being against immigration or for immigration. It is
not about being against an ethnic group or for an ethnic group. It is
not about being liberal. It is not about being conservative. It is
about the worry that the American people have for this concept called
liberty. They are worried about that concept right now. They are
worried about whether we have the mettle to stand up to the test, to
put us back on a road that will give them the confidence that what we
do will be done in the best interests of them and their children. There
is worry that the thing that gives us liberty, which is the rule of
law, is somehow now being tinkered with in a way that undermines their
confidence and security in what this American dream is all about.
So we have had a very interesting experience today, but it is really
not about the immigration bill. It is about something much greater that
we should be paying attention to. It is about the right to govern with
the confidence the people of this country give us and the
responsibility that comes with us to have the integrity to do that in a
way which builds that confidence, which rebuilds the strength, rebuilds
the positive attitude, rebuilds the ``I can do'' America has been known
for.
I asked for this time to speak not as a Republican but as a citizen
of this country with children and grandchildren, like everybody else
out there who wants the best for our country. We can debate about the
details.
I had this wonderful experience about a year ago traveling with
members of the opposite party to China. We met with students at Chinese
Harvard. What we found was 95 percent of the things we agree on, we
were solid in our bond.
The very thing that makes this country great is what Democrats and
Republicans agree on: the idea of the rule of law; the idea of freedom;
the idea that we have a Constitution that has to be supported,
nurtured, and maintained. The only way that happens is if we rebuild
the confidence of the American people in our abilities to do that.
We are in the midst of a debate on immigration that is a very wildly
moving, emotional issue for all sides. But it should be a signal to us
that when it is this wildly emotional and wildly divided, it should
temper our thoughts to
[[Page S8597]]
say the most important thing is not to finish the bill, the most
important thing is to reestablish credibility in what we do for the
American people.
I happen to believe if we do the right things that the American
people in their gut know are right, ultimately, we will go from the 17-
percent approval rating the country has of this body today back to
where we should be--a healthy, vibrant confidence that the people who
are elected to represent them in the Senate will, in fact, have the
confidence of the American people to do and carry out this wonderful,
creative experiment our Founders started over 200 years ago.
My question for the body and my challenge to the body is that we have
a greater problem than immigration. The problem is the test: Do we meet
the test that is before us of regaining the confidence of the American
people? I think that is the biggest test we have today. I think all 100
of us need to redouble our efforts to assure that No. 1, we listen; No.
2, the Constitution is our guide; that the oath we took said nothing
about Republican, said nothing about Democrat, said nothing about an
individual State, but said we have an oath to uphold the Constitution
of these United States without regard to party, without regard to
locale.
So I would beg my fellow Senators, over the next few weeks, as we go
on break in a week and we come back here, that the No. 1 goal that
ought to be in front of us is, how do we change that approval rating?
How do we restore the fact that we are listening, that we are hearing,
that our action is based on what we know to be right, what we know to
be good, and what we know is in the best interests long term for our
country?
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the legislation.
Amendment No. 1978 to Division VII of Amendment No. 1934, as Modified
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 1978 to division VII of amendment No.
1934, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the amendment add the following:
This section shall take effect one day after the date of
enactment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I think all of us understand we have
had a very full day today of voting on this legislation, the
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. After more than 30 days of
hearings since 9/11, after the 6 days of markup in our Judiciary
Committee on the legislation that we addressed last year, which is very
similar to the underlying legislation that is before us; after now some
23 days of debate on the legislation, both last year and now; after the
consideration of more than 70 different amendments--70 different
amendments--there is an awareness and understanding by the Members of
this body about the substance of this legislation and, hopefully, a
recognition of its importance.
We are sent here to legislate--not just to make speeches and to
submit amendments but to legislate in our national interests, and we
have a national challenge. We have a national challenge. I think
everyone as Members of this body understands it. Certainly we receive
the phone calls, the wires, the e-mails, and the rest. After it is all
said and done, I think the people in our respective States and the
people of this country are expecting us to exercise the best judgment
about this legislation. They are not asking us to put our finger to the
wind and say, from which way is the wind blowing the strongest and from
what direction, but to try and take some initial steps--and they are
initial but very important and fundamental steps--that can make a
difference in terms of our national and border security.
(Mr. CASEY assumed the Chair.)
Mr. KENNEDY. The American people are expecting action in this body.
Tomorrow, in the morning, it will certainly be an extremely important
and perhaps decisive vote about whether we are going to complete our
responsibility, or whether we are not. I have respect for those who
have expressed reservations and observations. But my commitment and
view is stronger than when we first started this legislation. The
importance of this legislation, I think,--I find it more persuasive
than the day it was initially introduced, developed, and shaped over
the period of the last years.
We all have been faced with this legislation more closely over this
debate and the debates we have had in recent days. We know, as we have
heard frequently, and as I have said and many others have said, we have
a national security issue and a problem. We can, as a nation, no longer
afford to have, effectively, almost an open border in the Southwest. We
also know, because in our committee we have listened to those who
understand this issue, when they say we need to have secure borders,
they also understand that with the strong kind of magnet attraction the
American economy has, there is going to be leakage on that border. No
matter how high we build walls or how many radars or air drones we have
there or how many border guards we have, there is going to be leakage,
unless we provide at least some opportunities for those who have some
skills that in the United States we find we are unable to get filled in
terms of the American workforce.
There has to be at least some opportunity for those individuals to
come to the United States. Those of us who support this legislation
believe in legality. We believe in national security, but we believe in
legality. What we have today is lawlessness. We have lawlessness on the
border, approaching the border, after the border, and in too many
shops, plants, and factories around our country, including in my own
State, in which we find the undocumented exploited, and they continue
to be exploited. That is happening today.
We have to ask: Do we have something that is going to be basically
serious about the border? Are we going to have a way for us to be able
to say, OK, there are certain skills that we need here in terms of the
American economy--those may be high skills, but in many circumstances
it is going to be low skills, according to the Department of Labor.
This legislation approaches that issue. We may say we would like to
have it skewed this way or that, to some degree, but the fundamentals
are essential in terms of the legality on our borders, in terms of
national security, and also with regard to worksite enforcement.
As one who has, along with others, been involved in these debates
about immigration reform, unless you are going to have a tamperproof
card, you might as well forget it. We have learned that lesson in the
1986 act and in the 1992 act and earlier periods of time. The idea that
somehow tomorrow we are not going to be willing to continue this
process and end this process without the assurances that we are going
to end up with a tamperproof card is going to mean that the challenges
we are facing on this issue at this time are going to be multiplied
many times over, many times over. That is a fact.
Some people are troubled by the way that has been fashioned in this
legislation. I think there is a strong and persuasive case we can make.
We will have an additional opportunity with the Schumer amendment and,
hopefully, with passage of cloture tomorrow. So we have those elements
that are law enforcement at the border, respectful law, by coming into
the United States and respecting our laws and our immigration laws, law
enforcement at the worksite, and respect for the laws in that period of
time. To say to those individuals who have come that--their motivations
for coming here, by and large, are the values which Americans respect
and admire, such as hard work. Sure, there may be some individuals who
have gamed the system out there. But there can be no denial when any of
us look at this situation and examine it and when you look at
particularly the faces and meet the individuals, as
[[Page S8598]]
we all have, and we have had the issue spoken to so well by many of our
colleagues, this is a population that is interested in hard work. That
is a value Americans admire. They also admire the fact that these are
families who work hard and care about the members of their family.
Mr. President, $40 billion a year is sent back to Central and South
America by the primarily undocumented workers in the United States.
This is where individuals are making $10,000 to $12,000 a year. So they
care about their families. They are not coming in on their own to try
to game the system. The statistics are there. I think those figures
speak for themselves in terms of their willingness to work hard, care
about their families and, as we all know, this community, this
constituency--they are men and women of faith and belief, strong
individuals of faith and belief.
On another occasion, we would say those are American values that we
admire, and so many of them want to be part of the American dream and
make America better. They reflect it by urging their sons and daughters
to go into the service--thousands of them being in the service of our
country in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of them have lost their lives in
the service of this country. So many of these families--as I listened
to the mayor of Los Angeles today talk about a number of mothers he had
met who lost their children in Iraq--the particular one he referred to
had been undocumented and their son had been lost. In any event, that
is the general sense of their desire and willingness, similar to other
immigrants who came at other times.
So what is their great violation? The violation is that they have
violated our immigration laws. That is serious. What is on the other
side of those barriers? The magnet of the American economy. The magnet
of the American economy has drawn these individuals like moths to a
flame. Sure, it is all there because they have violated our laws, but
they work hard and they care for their families. They are men and women
of faith, with an extraordinary record of looking after their
grandparents, and they have a great desire to be part of the American
dream. They have violated laws and they should have a penalty. We
looked around and looked around, those of us, Republicans and
Democrats, at what should be the penalty. Should they get a penalty?
The $5,000 processing fee can vary. We can put a requirement in about
learning English. In Boston, MA, it is not that the undocumented don't
want to learn English; it is a 3-year wait. Courses in English cost
from $2,000 to $3,000 in my part of the world. I look forward to the
Alexander amendment--the Senator from Tennessee. He wants to at least
provide greater access to individuals to learn English. We are for
that. There are requirements that they have to learn English. They have
to demonstrate they have worked here and that they paid their taxes and
they have to demonstrate that they are good Americans and that they are
learning English. We have those requirements. Before they can even
think about moving on the pathway to a green card, they have to wait in
line for the 8 years to clear up.
Then, according to a merit system, over the next 5 years, they will
be able to hopefully get on the path for a green card and then wait
another 5 years to become a citizen--8 years, 5 years, and 5 more
years. That is 18 years for some of those individuals, plus the
penalties and fines--for people who want to be a part of the American
dream.
This has, as others have spoken to, very important provisions in here
about the ag jobs. I remember going through the Southwest in the early
1960s when I arrived in the Senate. Americans were involved in the
Bracero Program, which, outside of slavery, was the greatest
exploitation of humanity. Perhaps we could talk about some of the
incidents in terms of the Native Americans certainly. But this was a
sanctioned program that continued for years and years with the
exploitation and abuse of people.
That was the beginning of the rise of the farmworker movement and the
extraordinary tensions that existed between the farmworkers and the
agricultural interests. It took a long period of time. Finally, they
got together to try to have a program which both of them agreed with,
which is the AgJOBS bill, to make a difference to 800,000 or 900,000
people who are some of the hardest working people in America. Then
there's the DREAM Act. There is some responsibility in the areas of
education. We know of the difficulty so many have in completing high
school. It is true in the Latino community. This kind of opportunity--
if they are the sons of people who came here undocumented, these
children didn't know about it, but if they work hard and complete
school, they have the opportunity to serve this country and they can
get on a pathway for citizenship, or if they are otherwise eligible and
the State approves, they can also continue in education.
So there are, I know, strong views about these different provisions;
but, quite frankly, I think it is a compelling story that demands and
requires action. If we fail this opportunity, we know we are going to
miss this opportunity for some time. It is getting late into the season
now, July and August we will be out and in September is the
appropriations time. We will move into a highly politicized period of
time, and we will move into a Presidential campaign. So we will miss an
incredible opportunity.
I hope the Senate is going to be responsible tomorrow. We know if we
fail, those individuals are all going to be out there; the numbers are
going to increase, exploitation will increase, and we are going to have
the silent amnesty that others have referred to. That is the real
alternative. I don't say that because I believe the failure to act is
bad, and it is going to get worse, although I believe it will. It is
that if we can take this action and make this downpayment, we can
continue to work on this issue as the House does. That will take time.
We can obviously work with those who are interested in it and try to
make adjustments and changes and try to strengthen and improve it. That
is the way the legislative process works. Hopefully, we will be able to
come to the period where we can all feel the final product is the best
judgment we have had on this bill. That is the optimum, and it seems to
me this is an exceedingly important opportunity we should not miss.
Finally, I again thank our leaders for giving us a chance to come
back to this issue. We know it has been a complicated and difficult
one. As I have said repeatedly, immigration and civil rights are the
hot-button issues. We have had complex issues in our HELP Committee
dealing with biologics, an enormously complex and difficult issue. We
came together and passed that legislation. We had issues dealing with
information technology, privacy, grants, and we came together and took
action. Our committee has been dealing with the general cost of
education and loan programs, and we were able to, Republicans and
Democrats, cut some $18 billion from the lenders and return $17 billion
to the students. We came together, Republicans and Democrats, and have
been able to get reauthorization of the Food and Drug Administration.
We look forward to continuing with mental health parity and other
issues. But it is the issues of immigration and civil rights that are
the hot-button issues, and they get the juices flowing.
I hope tonight people will stand back and think through the
significance of this vote tomorrow. It is going to be a matter of
enormous importance to our country. It is going to have enormous
importance in terms of quality of life for millions of people. We are
going to make the decision whether they are going to continue to live
in fear or whether they are going to be able to come out of that
darkness into the sunshine and be part of this country. If we don't
act, we all know what is going to be happening in local communities all
across the country and the increasing backwash that is going to arise
that is going to make other matters much more difficult for us to
continue to make progress on.
I look forward to tomorrow, and I hope all our Members will exercise
their best judgment. We will have an opportunity to move ahead and
complete this legislation and then hopefully we will continue the
progress we made in the Senate so we can work with those who have
differing views in the House and in the Senate and ultimately get
legislation that is worthy of the Senate.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support for the
[[Page S8599]]
Baucus-Tester-Collins-Leahy amendment to strip the references to the
problematic REAL ID program from the underlying immigration bill. We
may agree or disagree about the merits of the actual REAL ID program,
but as hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security
and Government Affairs Committee have shown, REAL ID is far from being
ready for prime time.
While the Department of Homeland Security has not even released final
regulations directing the States on REAL ID implementation, REAL ID
licenses are rapidly becoming a de facto national ID card, since you
will need one to enter courthouses, airports, Federal buildings, and--
if this bill passes--workplaces all across the country. With roughly
260 million drivers in this country, I do not see how we could have the
massive national databases required by REAL ID and this immigration
bill up and running by the 2013 deadline set in this bill. Moreover,
REAL ID raises multiple constitutional issues whose legal challenges
could delay final implementation for years.
In addition to numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns, REAL ID
is a massive drivers' tax that could cost Americans taxpayers more than
$23 billion. Opposition spans the political spectrum, from the right to
the left, and a large number of States have expressed concerns about
the mandates of the REAL ID Act by enacting bills and resolutions that
oppose REAL ID. Georgia, Washington, Oklahoma, Montana, South Carolina,
Maine, and New Hampshire have gone so far as to pass binding
legislation that says they intend to refuse to comply with REAL ID. The
National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Governors
Association have expressed serious reservations about the costs imposed
on the States--and the structure of the poorly drafted grant program in
the underlying bill. The Center for Democracy and Technology and the
ACLU have expressed serious concerns about the lack of privacy and
civil liberties protections within the REAL ID program. The reaction to
the unfunded mandates and lack of privacy standards in the REAL ID Act
is a good example of what happens when the Federal Government imposes a
unilaterally devised and ill-considered mandate rather than working to
meet goals through cooperation, bipartisanship, and partnership.
For any new immigration measures to be effective, they must be well
designed. Forcing employers, employees, and the States to use this
troublesome national ID card will slow down the hiring process, stifle
commerce, and not serve as an effective strategy. In addition, the
States have already told us that they will not all have their new
license programs up and running by the 2013 deadline called for in this
bill. On top of that, I have gone through this bill several times, and
I have found money for border fences, money for surveillance
technologies, money for border patrol agents, and money for detention
facilities, but I cannot find any hard money that actually goes into
REAL ID implementation. So doing away with this poorly drafted grant
program will not take $1 away from the $4.4 billion in enforcement
money contained in this bill.
As a result, I do not believe that we should jeopardize the future
success of the immigration reforms sought in this bill by tying REAL ID
too closely to it. Instead of mandating REAL ID licenses for employment
verification, I think we should support the Baucus-Tester-Collins-Leahy
amendment to strip REAL ID from this bill and put together a workable
employment verification system that does not needlessly burden every
legal job seeker in this country with the onerous and problematic
requirements of REAL ID.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know my friend from South Dakota wishes to
speak. I have a unanimous consent request I wish to make that will put
us into a situation where he can speak. I understand he wants to speak
for 5 minutes. This will only take a minute, and then I will be
recognized to do some other business we have to do tonight. It is
nothing in relation to immigration. No one need worry about that.
____________________