[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 16 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S458-S460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad the Senate is now having some 
discussion among Members not yet on the floor about the issue of 
immigration because it is a very important problem that we have to deal 
with. I look forward to the debate that I think is coming up this year 
on immigration, and I would like to share my thoughts and my past 
experiences on this issue. I particularly want to share my personal 
experience from the 1980s amnesty law and what we can learn from that 
debate.
  But before I go into that history, I wish to commend many Senators 
who are working together to forge a consensus and produce a product on 
this terribly difficult issue. I commend them for sitting down and 
agreeing to a set of principles that were put forth in a news 
conference last week. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I 
expect to play a role in brokering an even broader consensus with 
additional Members.
  I have read the bipartisan framework for immigration reform this 
group has written, and the one thing that struck me--in fact, it is the 
last sentence in the preamble--is this:

       We will ensure that this is a successful, permanent reform 
     to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.

  In other words, the group understands we need a long-term solution to 
the problem. We need a serious fix so future generations don't have to 
deal with 11 million or 15 million or 30 million people who have come 
illegally. That sentence is the most important part of that document, 
and we must not lose sight of the goal expressed by the eight Senators 
who enunciated that.
  But we need to learn from our previous mistakes so we truly don't 
have to revisit the problem. So let us discuss the 1986 amnesty under 
President Reagan. There are few of us in the Senate today who were 
present during that debate. In 1980, President Reagan campaigned on a 
promise that he would work to reform our immigration laws and legalize 
foreign workers in the United States. The President's policies were 
further shaped by the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee 
Policy that was created in 1978 under President Carter.
  President Reagan signed a bill into law on November 6, 1986. So 6 
years after he first ran for President, he signed a law. This law was 
known as the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The process to 
finalize the bill was long and arduous. It took years--6 years, to be 
exact.
  In 1981, when I was a freshman Senator, I joined the Judiciary 
Committee and was a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Refugee Policy. Back then, subcommittees did real work. They actually 
sat down and wrote legislation. We had 100 hours of hearings and 300 
witnesses before we

[[Page S459]]

marked up a bill in May 1982--a markup 4 years before the President 
ever signed it.
  Senator Simpson chaired the subcommittee, and other members included 
Senators Thurmond, Kennedy, and DeConcini. Senator Thurmond was called 
to the White House and Senator DeConcini had just been hospitalized, so 
Senators Simpson, Kennedy, and I brought up amendments and we actually 
voted on them. Senator Kennedy, on that day, said:.

       Immigration reform is one of the most complicated and 
     difficult issues; it involves human beings, it involves 
     families, it involves loved ones, children and the separation 
     of those individuals.

  His words would still resonate today.
  In 1982, I told my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that I 
wanted to do the right thing for the United States, and this is what I 
said at that time:

       The real issue here is what is best for United States 
     citizens. In trying to maintain that perspective, I have come 
     to the conclusion through the course of attending many 
     hearings on this issue, that increased border and interior 
     enforcement along with employer sanctions and a secure worker 
     eligibility identity system is necessary to regain control of 
     our borders.

  This is a philosophy that continues to guide me on this issue of 
immigration yet today. But I expressed my concerns with the 
legalization component at the time. I echoed the recommendations of the 
Select Commission on Immigration. That Commission said a legalization 
should, No. 1, be consistent with U.S. interests; and, 2, the program 
should not encourage further undocumented migration. The commission 
believed that a legalization program should not begin until new 
enforcement measures had been instituted.
  The Commission knew then, as I did and as I know now, that ``without 
more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a stimulus to 
further illegal entry.'' Those are the words of the Commission. You 
see, I didn't think permanent residency should be granted until we had 
a worker eligibility system. I offered an amendment on that point in 
1982, but that amendment failed.
  The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate passed a bill in 1982, 
but it did not pass the House of Representatives. We tried again in the 
next Congress. The Senate passed a bill in 1983, and the House followed 
in 1984. We convened a conference committee between the House and the 
Senate, but Walter Mondale came out opposed. So we adjourned for the 
elections and failed to finalize a bill that year--2 years before 
President Reagan finally signed a bill.
  We returned in 1985 to pass our bill again. That year, Senator 
Simpson included a provision to trigger the amnesty program only after 
enforcement measures to curtail illegal immigration were in place. 
Doesn't that sound familiar? Congress passed a final bill in November 
1986. The vote in the Senate was 63 to 24 and the House vote was 238 to 
173.
  Over the years, many Members have offered amendments to water down 
the enforcement provision in the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. That was the name 
of the legislation. Senator Simpson and Congressman Mazzoli were the 
leaders of that effort in 1986. There was a lot of opposition to 
employer sanctions, especially by Senator Kennedy. He wanted, in his 
words, ``criminal penalties to be based only upon injunctive finding of 
a pattern or practice.'' He tried to sunset the employer sanction. 
Senator Kennedy also fought hard to move the legalization cutoff date 
from 1980 to 1982 so more people could benefit from the amnesty.
  The 1986 bill was supposed to be a three-legged stool: control of 
illegal immigration, the first leg; a legalization program, the second 
leg; and the third leg, reform of legal immigration. We authorized $422 
million to carry out the requirements of the Immigration Reform Act and 
created a special fund for States to reimburse their costs. The 1986 
bill included a legalization program for two categories of people: one 
for individuals who had been present in the United States since 1982; 
and the second for farm workers who had worked in agriculture for at 
least 90 days prior to enactment. A total of 2.7 million people were 
given amnesty.
  We also had enforcement. For the first time ever, we made it illegal 
to knowingly hire or employ someone here illegally. We set penalties to 
deter the hiring of people here illegally. We wrote in the bill that 
``one essential element of immigration control is an increase in the 
border patrol and other inspection and enforcement activities of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to prevent and deter 
the illegal entry of aliens into the United States and the violation of 
the terms of their entry.''
  So let me again repeat one of the principles the Gang of 8 included 
in their framework enunciated last week: ``We will ensure that this is 
a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not 
need to be revisited.''
  Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed 
today. Legalize now, enforce later. But it is clear that philosophy 
doesn't work. Proponents of amnesty today argue we didn't get it right 
in 1986. I agree the enforcement mechanism in 1986 could have been 
stronger. That is why they need to be strong this time around. But I am 
already concerned some will attempt to water down the principles that 
have been put forth on enforcement measures. President Obama doesn't 
seem to favor triggers.
  The senior Senator from New York said just last week that border 
security wasn't going to stop legalization. In his words, he said:

       We're not using border security as an excuse or block to 
     the path of citizenship.

  Advocacy groups are already talking about ensuring that a border 
security commission doesn't stand in the way or have veto authority 
over a legalization program.
  One theme from 1986 is shining through today. Some say we need to 
legalize the millions of people who are already on U.S. soil. They say 
we need to bring them out of the shadows, know who is here, and give 
them a chance at U.S. citizenship. They imply that this would be a one-
time deal because we would get it right this time--like we thought we 
got it right in 1986 but didn't.
  In the 1980s Senator Simpson was convinced that what we did then 
would be a permanent solution to our immigration problems. He stated:

       We are attempting to assure that this is a one-time only 
     program. . . . The purpose of legalization is not to award or 
     reward or include the largest number of persons available. It 
     is to bring forward into a legal status those most deeply 
     entrenched in a society they would be least likely to return 
     home to when the job opportunities no longer are available.

  Senator Simpson said that a one-time amnesty would prevent us from a 
continuing series of amnesties. He said:

       The major reason for legalization is to eliminate an 
     illegal sub-class within our society. This is the legislation 
     that will eliminate this exploitable group. Some people like 
     to say that they hope it will clean the slate; that is what 
     we are trying to do is clean the slate.

  Well, those are good intentions by Senator Simpson, but, as I said, 
they obviously haven't worked. And it is an admonition to those who 
want to do it right, once and for all, to learn from the mistakes of 
1986.
  Senator Simpson also said:

       The American people, in my mind, will never accept a 
     legalization program unless they can be assured this is a 
     one-shot deal and that this is it, this is a one-time 
     occurrence. And the policymakers in this country are not 
     going to allow it to happen again and will prevent the 
     situation which gave rise to it.

  Well, as smart as Senator Simpson is--and he is a smart person. I 
like to see him on television, particularly when he is talking about 
why the President didn't back the Simpson-Bowles Commission on budget 
reform and fiscal reform. But here is a person who worked 6 years to 
get it right so we would never have to visit it again, when we had 3 
million people who had come here, illegally violating our laws--get it 
fixed once and for all and thought he did. But I think now he would 
admit--and I have to admit because I was on the subcommittee--we didn't 
get it right. I voted for that.
  So now, as I am looking at a group of eight trying to say in the 
preamble of their working paper: We are going to fix this once and for 
all, well, you better check that it is not very easy to do that, and 
you better do it better than we did.
  The INS Commissioner at the time in 1986, Alan Nelson, told the 
committee that the legalization program was ``realistic and humane'' 
and said further that ``it is clear that this is meant to

[[Page S460]]

be a one-time proposal, and not intended to recur.''
  In 1986, the committee report said:

       . . . the solution lies in legalizing the status of aliens 
     who have been present in the United States for several years, 
     recognizing that past failures to enforce the immigration 
     laws have allowed them to enter and to settle here.

  Also, according to the report, the committee `` . . . strongly 
believes that a one-time legalization program is a necessary part of an 
effective enforcement program and that a generous program is an 
essential part of any immigration reform legislation.''
  In 1986 the Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. 
At the time, President Reagan hailed it as the most comprehensive 
reform of our immigration laws since 1952. He stated that the 
legislation was a major step toward meeting the challenge to our 
sovereignty while at the same time preserving and enhancing the 
Nation's heritage of legal immigration--a heritage of which we all 
ought to be proud.
  What Congress, the public, and the President did not envision or did 
not want was another amnesty debate. The American people were told in 
1986 that this would be a one-time shot. The incentive to buy in to the 
argument was the promise of enforcement.
  In 1985 Senator Simpson said:

       If legalization should occur before more effective 
     enforcement is available, the illegal population is only 
     going to grow very swiftly again, and that will create 
     pressures for additional legalization. And it will not be a 
     one-time only legalization; it will be a continuing series.

  Many believed that employer sanctions were the only way to curtail 
illegal immigration. One committee report stated that ``unless employer 
sanctions are enacted, the Committee is concerned that the situation 
will continue to worsen.''
  In 1985 Senator Metzenbaum of Ohio said:

       When push comes to shove, there is only one realistic way 
     that you can stop illegal immigration into this country, and 
     that is by making it illegal and being tough enough that 
     illegal immigrants cannot work in this country.

  Knowing what we know now, an immigration reform bill must include 
tough enforcement measures. We must stop flow at the border. We must 
expand and enhance legal avenues so that people are not coming here 
illegally. We must have a strong employment verification program.
  Unfortunately, we aren't enforcing the laws we have on the books 
today. The American people don't trust that we will enforce these laws 
in the future. We provided amnesty overnight in 1986 and didn't fulfill 
the other parts of the equation. Border security, enforcement measures, 
and legal immigration reform need to be the first things on our agenda 
in 2013.
  I chose to talk about this topic today because I believe we can learn 
from the past. We can learn from our mistakes. This isn't just about 
our history, it is about our future. Today, people in foreign lands 
want to be a part of this great Nation. We should feel privileged that 
people love our country and want to become Americans.
  We must make sure the decisions we make with regard to our 
immigration policies follow our longstanding ideals. We want to welcome 
new Americans, but we need to live by the rules we have set. We cannot 
let our welcome mat be trampled on or our system of laws be undermined.
  Let me end by echoing the words of President Reagan:

       Distance does not discourage illegal immigration to the 
     United States from all around the globe. The problem of 
     illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a 
     problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our 
     objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, 
     and secure system of immigration into this country and not to 
     discriminate in any way against particular nations or people. 
     Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our 
     efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby 
     preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of 
     our people: American citizenship.

  My hope is that we will preserve the value of American citizenship, 
as President Reagan said. The path we take today will shape our country 
for years to come. It is my hope that we can find a solution while 
learning from our mistakes and ensuring that future generations don't 
have to revisit this problem down the road.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________