[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4507-4511]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IMMIGRATION REFORM

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak in support 
of the immigration reform bill which has been produced out of our 
Judiciary Committee. I wish to first congratulate Senator Specter and 
Senator Leahy for their leadership in that effort in the Judiciary 
Committee. I also wish to congratulate all of my colleagues, 
Republicans and Democrats, who have come together in support of this 
historic measure that is now before the Senate.
  I believe this measure truly represents the kind of bipartisan spirit 
that leads to the best policy creation for our country. I am also proud 
of the eight sponsors of the McCain-Kennedy bill, including Senator 
McCain and Senator Graham, Senator Brownback, Senator Martinez, Senator 
Kennedy, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Obama, who came together and 
have led part of the effort to make sure we address comprehensive 
immigration reform this year.
  I believe these bipartisan success stories establish the kind of 
civility we need to have in the Senate to be able to address the major 
issues that affect our country. In reality, what the Judiciary 
Committee proposal does is it addresses the real problem we currently 
are facing in our country. We are facing a reality of broken borders 
and lawlessness at our borders as well as the interior with regard to 
immigration issues. What the Judiciary Committee bill does is it takes 
that reality of broken borders and lawlessness and creates a system 
that addresses our national security by strengthening our borders.
  It also takes that system and reality of broken borders and 
lawlessness and says we can do a better job in securing our interior by 
enforcing our immigration laws. It also takes that system of broken 
borders and lawlessness and it creates a workable system of immigration 
that addresses both the economic and human realities of immigration in 
our Nation.
  Finally, it takes that system of broken borders and lawlessness and 
tackles head on the horrible injustice that occurs with human 
trafficking that we see in our immigration problems of today.
  As the Senate works to perfect and strengthen this legislation, it is 
my hope we will build upon the committee's work. I believe if we 
continue in a bipartisan manner, our final work product will be a 
comprehensive immigration reform law that protects our borders and 
addresses the human and economic realities within our homeland.
  I believe comprehensive immigration reform legislation must be tough, 
must be fair, and must be practical. It must be tough, and it must be 
fair, and it must be practical. I believe the Judiciary Committee 
proposal is, in fact, tough, fair, and practical.
  I know I am not alone in supporting this type of approach. Just last 
week,

[[Page 4508]]

President Bush met with Americans from the business, faith, 
agriculture, and civil rights communities across our country. In the 
group in that meeting there were two people from Colorado who attended: 
Cindy Clark from The Broadmoor in Colorado Springs and Archbishop 
Charles Chaput, the archbishop of Denver. I commend both Ms. Clark and 
the archbishop for voicing the concerns of Coloradans with the 
President that we need to have a comprehensive immigration reform 
package. I have also spoken with President Bush and members of his 
Cabinet on a number of different occasions in the last year about the 
need for comprehensive immigration reform.
  I share President Bush's belief, as he says--and I quote--

       Ours is a nation of law and ours is a nation of immigrants, 
     we believe that we can have rational, important immigration 
     policy that's based upon law and reflects our deep desire to 
     be a compassionate and decent nation.

  Immigration is, indeed, a vital component of our Nation's history. 
Our country has always been seen as a land of opportunity for 
immigrants who are willing to work hard for a chance at achieving the 
American dream for themselves and for their families.
  Without the important contributions immigrants have made to our 
country, the United States would not exist as we know it today.
  In my home State of Colorado, the first nonnatives to explore our 
lands were the Spanish. They arrived nearly 500 years ago and left 
their mark on the American Southwest and Colorado. Their presence is 
reflected today in the names of my State and its cities, its rivers, 
its mountains, and even in the food we eat.
  More recently, immigrants came to Colorado to farm and ranch, to mine 
our State's abundant natural resources, to build the railroads and 
forge steel. They came, and continue to come, out of desperation, and 
also out of hope--the hope of America.
  In a recent newspaper column, a former councilman, Bill Burnett, of 
the little Colorado town of Minturn--an old mining town--summed up the 
sentiments of many people in my State. He said:

       Without immigrants, we never would've built this place.

  The sentiment is echoed by many across this great country of ours.
  It can also be heard through the words of the great poem ``The Mew 
Colossus,'' inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. That poem 
says:

     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-tost to me,
     I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

  Our country has always been a beacon of hope.
  My own family migrated to Colorado in the 1850s, almost 20 years 
before Colorado became a State. We came from northern New Mexico, from 
a city named Santa Fe, which we had helped found over 250 years 
earlier. That was before Plymouth Rock and James Town. We pioneered the 
settlement of Colorado's San Luis Valley, where we have farmed the same 
land for almost 150 years.
  In truth, every one of us in Congress and, indeed, virtually every 
person in America has a story to tell of their immigrant roots. That is 
because we are a nation of immigrants, a historical fact that has made 
us the wonder, the hope, and the envy of the world for centuries.
  But there is no question today that our immigration laws are not 
working. We have broken borders in America today, and we must fix the 
problem for the sake of the national security of America.
  The level of illegal immigration on our borders is unacceptable and 
has to change. Our borders are undermanned and overwhelmed. We must do 
far better in getting control of our borders.
  In the past decade alone, we have seen the number of undocumented 
immigrants in our country rise from 4 million to some 12 million in 
2006.
  Enforcement of our immigration laws has certainly not kept pace with 
the flow of both legal and illegal immigration, and the laws that deal 
with those who cross the border are enforced only rarely so that in 
reality many believe enforcement of the laws simply does not exist.
  In this post 9/11 era, it is critical we get control of our borders--
both the northern border with Canada as well as the southern border 
with Mexico--so we can protect our country from outside threats that 
would do harm to Americans and punish those who exploit the hopes of 
foreign workers who come here through human trafficking.
  We must solve our Nation's illegal immigration problems as a matter 
of national security.
  To that end, the first priority of immigration reform must be to 
provide for adequate and sensible border security and a renewed Federal 
commitment to enforcing our Nation's immigration laws. The Judiciary 
Committee bill contains many provisions that will strengthen 
enforcement both at the border and within our country. It contains more 
than 30 provisions that will ensure the security of our borders.
  Among the numerous provisions it includes, it doubles the number of 
Border Patrol agents. It adds 12,000 new agents over the next 5 years. 
It doubles interior enforcement. It does so by adding 1,000 
investigators per year over the next 5 years. It provides additional 
border fences at specific vulnerable sections across the border. It 
increases resources to expand the ability of Federal agents to retrieve 
aliens detained by local police. And there are numerous other 
enforcement provisions contained within the bill.
  Some in our country would have preferred that we wall off our country 
along our southern border. To the proponents of building that wall, I 
ask them: What would Ronald Reagan have said about that wall? We should 
not repeat the example of the Berlin Wall, one of the most shameful 
symbols of antifreedom and oppression ever designed by man, designed 
solely to keep people from hope and opportunity and freedom. It was 
President Reagan who told the Soviet leader: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down 
this wall. We must not build those walls around our country.
  Some also want to make criminals out of local parish priests who 
counsel their immigrant parishioners and soup-kitchen workers who 
provide a warm meal to the hungry. That, too, is wrong, to criminalize 
these people who take on humanitarian endeavors. I am pleased that the 
Judiciary Committee bill does not call for the construction of a 
massive wall along the border and does not criminalize the millions of 
Americans who come into contact with undocumented workers.
  These security and enforcement efforts alone cannot be our sole means 
to confront this challenge. In the past, Congress has focused almost 
exclusively on only this component of border security. We have tripled 
the number of Border Patrol agents who sometimes spend eight times as 
many hours patrolling the border. Yet during the same time, our borders 
have continued to be out of control.
  The reality is, regardless of how much money we dedicate to border 
and interior enforcement, there are economic forces that spur 
immigration. Our country's current workforce is continuing to age, and 
our newer workers have become more educated and less interested in 
taking the important jobs our economy keeps creating. The Judiciary 
Committee bill addresses this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, 
I know he has a limited period of time. Obviously, in describing his 
own background and that of his family--some 160 years in Colorado, 250 
years in Santa Fe--he knows the issues. He brings a special dimension 
to the debate. What I am hearing from the Senator is that what is 
really necessary is a comprehensive approach, that the Senator is a 
strong believer that we have to do something about our borders to make 
sure they are going to be the best in terms of technology so we can 
have realistic laws, but that we also have to understand how we are 
going to include those undocumenteds here in the United States in a way 
which is going to be consistent with our traditions and will also be 
responsible.

[[Page 4509]]

  Many have called that adjustment status amnesty. I reject that. I ask 
the Senator if he doesn't agree with me that amnesty means forgiveness. 
It means pardon. That is not what the underlying legislation is. The 
underlying legislation says you have to go to the back of the line. You 
have to wait until everyone who is in line gets the opportunity to come 
here. You have to work hard, play by the rules, pay your taxes, and pay 
a fine. Then you can earn your way to the possibility of citizenship, 
if that is what you desire. If you don't desire that, you don't have 
to. Does the Senator agree with me that is a reasonable way we ought to 
think about that, at least when we are trying to recognize that some 11 
million undocumented people are here, who work hard and play by the 
rules? Eighty thousand of them are permanent residents who are serving 
in the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should they not be able to 
earn the possibility of citizenship?
  Mr. SALAZAR. I agree with my colleague and friend from Massachusetts. 
As a person who has worked with law enforcement for a good part of my 
life as attorney general of my State, I know what amnesty is. I believe 
those who characterize this bill as amnesty are absolutely wrong. In 
the proposal of the Judiciary Committee, we have said that you go to 
the back of the line. What we have said is that you pay a very 
substantial fine. That, in my view, with the other provisions in the 
bill, takes it completely out of the context of any kind of amnesty 
program we have ever seen.
  I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts that at the end of the 
day, what we are dealing with is the reality of creating a stronger 
border but then addressing the reality within our Nation in a way that 
is workable. For those who would simply want to ignore the reality of 
the 11 to 12 million undocumented workers who are in the shadows of 
America today, we are simply not going to create a workable system of 
immigration reform in our country.
  That is why I join my colleague from Massachusetts in pushing as hard 
as I can to get the Judiciary bill passed.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. He has explained the underlying 
bill accurately and correctly. The Senator understands that any of 
those individuals attempting to adjust their status over an 11-year 
period, if they get in trouble with the law, they are subject to 
deportation. They have to play by the rules, pay their taxes, work in 
the community, and be good citizens, learning English.
  I am always impressed by the fact that under the Pew poll, it says 
that 98 percent of undocumented males are working today in the United 
States. These are workers making our economy stronger and providing for 
their families. If they in any way violate the law, they are subject to 
all of the legal interpretations and their opportunity for citizenship 
is eliminated. This is a tough provision, I believe.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts. Amnesty is 
simply a red herring from those who don't want to get real immigration 
reform. When you talk about somebody having to wait in line for 11 
years, having to go to the back of the line, having to remain crime 
free for 11 years, having to have a job in America, having to have an 
absolutely clean record, and then, at the end of the day, having to pay 
a substantial monetary fine, that is not amnesty.
  We will be on this bill for a number of days. I expect to be speaking 
again about the importance of immigration reform as part of our 
national security. I wanted today, in this period of morning business 
and as we enter into the debate, to read from one of my favorite 
prayers from a person who understood the importance of immigration, 
especially in the context of agriculture. That is Cesar Chavez. He 
wrote this prayer, and it is something I think all of us in the Chamber 
should keep in mind as we move forward in the debate:
  Show me the suffering of the most miserable so that I will know my 
people's plight. Free me to pray for others, for you are present in 
every person. Help me take responsibility for my own life so that I can 
be free at last. Grant me courage to serve others, for in service there 
is true life. Give me honesty and patience so that I can work with 
other workers.
  Bring forth song and celebration so that the spirit will be alive 
among us. Let the disparate flourish and grow so that we will never 
tire of the struggle. Let us remember those who have died for justice, 
for they have given us life. Help us love even those who hate us so 
that we can change the world.
  As we engage in this very important debate on comprehensive 
immigration reform, I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that this is 
one of the most important issues we confront together as a group of 
Americans in the 109th Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator 
from Colorado and the senior Senator from Massachusetts regarding the 
important issue before the Senate, which is trying to reconcile the 
rules and regulations regarding immigration. I commend both of them for 
their outstanding leadership on that issue.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Kerry pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2482 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I did not hear the unanimous consent 
request of Senator Kerry. Was it to have 3 minutes on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. It was to add 3 minutes to his side.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that we add an additional 3 
minutes to the majority's time also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President. I rise to express my extreme 
disappointment with the actions taken by the Senate Judiciary Committee 
earlier this week on immigration reform. I know that this is a tough 
issue, an emotional issue, and that my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee worked very hard to pass something out of committee. However, 
it seems to me that the rush to pass some form of immigration reform 
eclipsed prudent policy-making.
  The immigration problem in our country is out of control and must be 
solved. Our top priority in this immigration reform debate is to 
provide for real and comprehensive border security. We must also 
address in a responsible manner the presence of an enormous illegal 
population currently in our country.
  The issue before us is critical to the future of our country, in 
terms of national security, economic prosperity, and the fabric of our 
Nation. I hope we will proceed with a thoughtful and thorough debate in 
the Senate because the proposals we are going to be asked to consider 
are enormous in scope and have far-reaching implications. We must 
ensure that not only the Senators but also the American people have 
ample opportunity to fully comprehend the consequences of any action we 
take.
  It is absolutely vital that the Senate act to put the resources and 
mechanisms in place to allow the Department of Homeland Security to 
gain operational control of our borders and to have stronger and more 
meaningful enforcement of our immigration laws in the interior of the 
United States.
  Rarely a day goes by when our borders are not breached in a new way. 
By now, we've all heard the story of the teams of investigators from 
the Government Accountability Office who, in December 2005, were able 
to carry enough radioactive material to make two dirty bombs past 
border checkpoints in Texas and Washington State by faking Government 
documents We can address this problem, and we will, by providing 
improved training for agents and improved technology at the borders.
  The magnitude of the flow of illegal immigrants into the United 
States is astounding. The Border Patrol arrested

[[Page 4510]]

1.2 million illegal immigrants in 2005, but couldn't stop hundreds of 
thousands more from unlawfully entering the country because they don't 
have the resources. We can address this problem and we will, by 
providing more Border Patrol agents, better infrastructure, additional 
checkpoints and use of the latest technology available.
  In addition, we must address the real magnet for illegal immigration 
for so many: the promise of a job. Most illegal immigrants in the 
United States did not come to this country to cause us harm but rather 
came to earn a better life for themselves and their families. However, 
we must ensure that a legal process for hiring foreign workers is put 
in place and strictly adhered to. We can address this problem and we 
will by mandating employer sanctions for those who flaunt the rule of 
law and continue to hire illegal workers and by providing tamper-proof 
documentation to those who are authorized to work in the United States 
so that employers will have no confusion about the legality of the 
workers they hire.
  In addition to border security, we will be addressing a guest worker 
program. However, I am hoping we can have the opportunity to refocus 
the Senate's attention on the ``guest'' part of the term guest worker 
program. It is vital in this debate to distinguish between true 
temporary guest worker programs and proposals that will lead a guest 
worker down a new path to citizenship. I don't think it's fair to call 
the legislation passed by the Judiciary Committee a guest worker bill. 
It is more appropriately named a citizen worker bill because it 
provides a clear new path to citizenship for aliens who are currently 
in the United States illegally.
  I have a very simple question to ask all Members of the Senate as we 
debate this bill: Why is it necessary that we address the issue of U.S. 
citizenship when we are talking about immigration reform? There are 
reasons we need to deal with the people who are here illegally. There 
are reasons we need to deal with folks who want to come to this country 
for the right reasons. But why is it necessary in this legislation that 
we even consider the issue of U.S. citizenship?
  I am particularly concerned about the agricultural guest worker 
program adopted by the Judiciary Committee because I believe it is 
contrary to the best interests of American agriculture. Not only that, 
but it will punish those farmers who have been abiding by the law in 
this country and utilizing the H-2A program, which has been a 
longstanding temporary guest worker program in the U.S. relative to 
agriculture.
  Because my focus in this debate will center on border security and a 
temporary agricultural guest worker program, I would like to take a few 
minutes to outline some of the problems I see with the Judiciary 
Committee's agricultural guest worker program and indicate my intention 
to utilize the amendment process at the appropriate time to attempt to 
remedy what I regard as some shortcomings of the Judiciary Committee's 
agricultural reform.
  Most troubling to me is that the agricultural reform provision 
provides amnesty to 1.5 million illegal workers in agriculture.
  Some might call it earned adjustment of status or earned citizenship, 
but I call it amnesty because it provides a clear path to citizenship 
for illegal agricultural workers who meet a very low threshold. These 
illegal workers will not have to return to their home countries and 
will not have to wait their turn in line to gain legal permanent 
resident status in the United States.
  The amnesty provision would allow illegal aliens who performed 863 
hours, or 150 days, of agricultural work in the United States between 
January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2005, to qualify for a blue card.
  In legislation Senator Kyl and I introduced a year ago and had on the 
floor previously, we had a blue card provision. That is not the blue 
card I am talking about this morning. The blue card I am referring to 
is the one that was created by the Judiciary Committee mark.
  The blue card program has a low threshold requirement to qualify. A 
workday is defined as ``any day in which the individual is employed 1 
or more hours in agriculture.'' So someone who worked 1 hour per day 
for 150 days over the past 2 years would qualify for a blue card. The 
blue card under the Judiciary Committee bill would allow those illegal 
workers to then work legally in agriculture or any other area of our 
economy, provided they satisfy their agricultural employment 
requirements each year.
  Once in possession of a blue card, an alien who is currently here 
illegally, would only have to work in agriculture for 100 workdays, or 
575 hours per year, over a 5-year period to qualify for legal permanent 
resident status.
  Alternatively, those blue card workers could work 150 workdays, or 
863 hours per year, over a 3-year period to earn legal permanent 
resident status.
  A workday is still defined as ``any day in which the individual is 
employed 1 or more hours in agriculture.'' So the requirement to obtain 
legal permanent resident status is either 100 hours per year over a 5-
year period or 150 hours per year over a 3-year period.
  While the number of blue cards allowed to be issued is capped at 1.5 
million, once a blue card holder becomes a legal permanent resident, 
his or her family members receive derivative legal status and work 
authorization.
  That means that whether a blue card worker has 1 child or 10 
children, once he or she becomes a legal permanent resident, the rest 
of the family will have been deemed to have been here legally in the 
United States, and the spouse will be allowed to work regardless of 
whether they have had a job in the United States in the past.
  This is hardly matching willing workers with willing employers but, 
rather, putting a large population on a level playing field with 
American workers for job opportunities.
  While some of my colleagues might disagree with me on the amnesty 
issue, we should be able to agree on the fact that these agricultural 
workers who earn amnesty through this provision will not remain in 
agriculture forever.
  Most everyone agrees that agriculture is the hardest low-skilled work 
around in our country today. It is truly backbreaking. Generally, those 
who have had an opportunity to earn a living in some other manner have 
chosen to do so. Even those who choose to stay in agricultural work 
find they cannot occupy these labor-intensive jobs over a long period 
of time. There is a natural tendency to age out of agricultural work.
  Therefore, if this provision adopted by the Judiciary Committee is 
enacted into law, I anticipate those current illegal workers who become 
legal permanent residents will leave agriculture in the short term and 
leave our farmers to continue to rely only upon H-2A for their 
workforce, if they are going to hire legal workers.
  The reason I believe these workers will leave agriculture is because 
that is what has happened in the past. I have spoken with numerous 
farmers who were farming during the special agricultural worker program 
Congress authorized in 1986. That is commonly called the Special 
Agricultural Worker Program. That program provided amnesty for those 
agricultural workers who performed 90 days of farm work in 1985 through 
1986.
  Chalmers Carr, a peach grower in the State of South Carolina, helped 
200 workers adjust in 1986 pursuant to the special agricultural worker 
education program. After 2 years, 75 percent of those workers had left 
his farm, and after 5 years, the last adjusted worker left agriculture.
  Similarly, Bill Brim, a Georgia fruit and vegetable grower, assisted 
130 workers adjust status pursuant to the Special Agricultural Worker 
Program. Not one single one of the 130 workers stayed on his farm for 
more than 6 months after they adjusted their status.
  Recognizing that these agricultural workers who are able to adjust 
their status will not be in agriculture forever, the Senate should be 
able to agree that we need a viable H-2A program to address the labor 
needs of agriculture in the future. Unfortunately, the agricultural 
provision of the Judiciary Committee's bill simply does not

[[Page 4511]]

meet the needs of our Nation's agribusiness.
  It is ironic to me that those who admittedly do not use the H-2A 
program in their States purport to know the modifications necessary for 
improvement of the program. In reality, the language contained in the 
Judiciary Committee's proposal provides every advantage to those 
agricultural employers who have been utilizing an illegal workforce and 
cripples those employers who have utilized the legal H-2A program.
  For instance, the Judiciary Committee's agricultural proposal treats 
all those currently illegal aliens who qualify for a blue card as U.S. 
workers for purposes of recruiting workers. This means an agricultural 
employer who has been utilizing the H-2A program for years and 
following the rule of law already on the books will be forced to hire 
an illegal alien with a blue card before that farmer can petition to 
bring in the same people who had been working and returning in a legal 
manner for him in the H-2A program for years.
  Further, in the case of an agricultural employer who properly applies 
for and brings H-2A workers to work on his farm, that employer will be 
forced to replace that H-2A worker for whom he has paid transportation 
costs to the worksite with a blue card worker who arrives at the 
worksite at any point during the first 50 percent of the work period 
seeking an agricultural job to fill his or her yearly hourly 
requirement to maintain their blue card status.
  Once again, we are going to be giving folks who are here illegally 
preferential treatment over those folks who are here legally. There is 
no common sense whatsoever to that proposal.
  That yearly requirement, in many cases, may not encompass the 
employer's entire season or period of desired employment, leaving the 
employer, again, without an adequate, reliable workforce. This 
disadvantages those who have been playing by the rules.
  The framework of the Judiciary Committee's proposal which provides 
that only 575 hours of agricultural labor per year are required to 
transition from blue card status to that of a legal permanent resident 
will likely have a destabilizing effect on the agricultural workforce.
  Madam President, 575 hours per year equates to a little less than 72 
days per year based on an 8-hour workday. I don't know about farms in 
California or Idaho, but in Georgia, our farmworkers generally work 
around 11 or 12 hours per day during peak season. Using a 12-hour 
workday, a blue card worker will work just under 48 days to meet the 
yearly minimum hour requirement.
  If these blue card workers are allowed to work in industries other 
than agriculture and are only required to work 575 agricultural hours 
to qualify for legal permanent resident status, my guess is they will 
not work in agriculture one hour more than necessary. This is not going 
to provide our agricultural employers with the stable workforce they 
are being promised.
  I close with a comment relative to a very current issue that is very 
important as we debate this bill on the floor today, and that is the 
fact that our President today is in Cancun, Mexico, meeting with the 
leadership of our two best trading partners and our two border partners 
in the United States, that being the leadership of Mexico and the 
leadership of Canada.
  As he meets with those leaders, I hope he will strongly emphasize, 
particularly to the leadership in Mexico, to change their position on 
border security. It is almost unfathomable to me that the leader of a 
country would say to his citizens that he is encouraging a border 
country to grant amnesty to anyone who has left his country to go into 
a border country. But that is exactly what is happening on the part of 
President Fox.
  I hope President Bush emphasizes to the leadership over this week 
that they must be a partner with us in helping secure their border and 
our border which we have in common. If they will work with us, we can 
secure the border, and if this body acts in an appropriate way over the 
next several days, we can come up with an accommodation to those 
workers who are here for the right reason and, at the same time, we can 
ensure that those people who have crossed into our country illegally 
return to their home country, again, in the right way.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to say a few words about 
immigration. May I inquire first how much time is left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 15 minutes remaining.

                          ____________________