[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4671-4676]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2454, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2454) to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to provide for comprehensive reform, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Specter/Leahy amendment No. 3192, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Kyl/Cornyn amendment No. 3206 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     make certain aliens ineligible for conditional nonimmigrant 
     work authorization and status.
       Cornyn amendment No. 3207 (to amendment No. 3206) to 
     establish an enactment date.
       Bingaman amendment No. 3210 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     provide financial aid to local law enforcement officials 
     along the Nation's borders.
       Alexander amendment No. 3193 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     prescribe the binding oath or affirmation of renunciation and 
     allegiance required to the naturalized as a citizen of the 
     United States, to encourage and support the efforts of 
     prospective citizens of the United States to become citizens.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my sincerest appreciation for 
the leadership of Senator John Cornyn as we have attempted in the 
Judiciary Committee--of which we are both members--to try and help 
produce a bill that will actually work, that will allow legal 
immigration to be formal, effective, and allow more people to come into 
our country legally while ending the disarray which now exists. He is 
so knowledgeable as a former justice on the Supreme Court of Texas and 
former attorney general of Texas. He understands it so well, being a 
Member from a State that deals with this in such a consistent and 
continuous way. I thank the Senator for his excellent work.
  One of the aspects that is most troubling to me about the process--as 
it has gone along, I have become even more concerned about it--is that 
it indicates a lack of serious thought about what we are going to do as 
a nation to deal with those who are here illegally now. We know there 
are a lot of good people here. What are we going to do in the future?
  Let me report how things went in the Judiciary Committee. We had the 
Alito hearings, we had the Roberts hearings, we had the PATRIOT Act 
debate, and we had the asbestos debate. We have been as busy as any 
committee has ever been on a host of important issues facing our 
country all year. It seems as if that is about all I do, and I am on 
the Armed Services Committee at a time when we are a nation at war. We 
have a lot of things going on, and we have worked very hard.
  At the beginning of the process, I expressed concern asked that we 
not rush the committee into something before it was ready. The majority 
leader set this time for this bill to come to the floor, and he said he 
expected us to complete a bill if we wanted a Judiciary Committee bill 
to be the vehicle on the floor. So the committee tried to do it. But 
there was not enough time. We did not give enough thought to it, in my 
view. We met for 6 days in the Judiciary Committee attempting to mark 
up Chairman Specter's immigration legislation, a mark that he put out 
which is considerably better, in my view, then what is currently on the 
floor. His was not acceptable in some ways, but it is better than the 
one we produced. He put his mark out for debate in Committee.
  We began to discuss it. We met on March 2, March 8, March 9, March 
15, 16, and 27. Six days may sound like a lot in the committee process, 
but this

[[Page 4672]]

bill is 400 pages involving tremendous national issues which many 
people feel strongly about and which deserve real discussion.
  During the first day, we basically just talked about the bill. No 
amendments were offered during the markup. During the next 3 days, we 
talked about the enforcement provisions of the bill and simply accepted 
by unanimous consent noncontroversial amendments to the first two 
titles of the bill, two of the seven titles. We accepted some 
amendments.
  Then we get to day four. We did not have a single vote on any 
amendment during those first four days of hearings. On the fifth day, 
we once again in committee talked about how best to proceed. No 
amendments were offered, and none were voted on.
  During the 5 days, we did not vote on a single amendment. All the 
controversial issues got pushed off to Monday. We are not normally here 
on Monday, but we showed up on Monday because the leader said we had to 
have a bill out Monday night or he would bring up his own bill.
  During the morning session on Monday, we spent 3\1/2\ hours talking 
about amendments on the enforcement provisions of the bill. We spent a 
good bit of time on the enforcement provisions and made some progress. 
I got optimistic to the point that I have said if we did just a few 
more things, we could create an enforcement system that would work. So 
we spent a little time on enforcement. But we are still now talking 
about title II of the seven titles in the bill.
  After lunch on Monday of this week, we met for another 3\1/2\ hours 
and ran through the remaining five titles, five sections of the bill, 
with little discussion and less understanding of what the amendments 
were and what they amounted to. We voted on several amendments without 
even having language to review. In only 3\1/2\ hours on Monday, we 
voted on four amnesty provisions and increased the chairman's mark by 
over 100 pages.
  Let me make this clear. We spent 5 days talking about the enforcement 
issues with little controversy there. In contrast, we spent 3\1/2\ 
hours passing out the massive amnesty provisions in the bill that is 
now in the Senate that will attempt to legalize and put on an automatic 
path, virtually, to citizenship.
  We also passed legislation that increases the legal immigration in 
our country by at least double--probably more than that--to 400,000 per 
year, with little discussion of who and how that should be done. It 
just was offered and passed.
  I believe this Senate needs to slow down and think about where we 
are. It is very important.
  Members of this Senate have expressed deep concern that the border 
has become a major gateway for terrorists to have access to the United 
States. Senator Feinstein expressed that. Clearly, she is from 
California. We are pleased to have three Senators--Senator Feinstein 
from California, Senator Kyl from Arizona, and Senator Cornyn from 
Texas--who live on the border and know about it and understand it in 
many ways, far better than the rest of us. I share her concern and 
believe it can only be remedied by focusing on fixing our immigration 
system as a whole. It is something we can do. This is within our grasp 
at this point, but we are not there yet.
  Securing our borders and being able to keep track of the people who 
come in and out of our country is essential to our security. We know 
that countries without secure immigration policies are a natural fit 
for bad actors who seek to live anonymously within their borders. A 
country that does not protect its borders and does not know the 
identity of those who come in and out of the country is laying out the 
welcome mat for criminals and even terrorists.
  I have visited a number of times with troops and other government 
officials in Afghanistan. I have had the honor to meet with General 
Jones, our commander in Europe, General Abizaid, our commander in 
Central Command, and they have expressed exceedingly great concern to 
me about unregulated border areas. They have emphasized that there are 
a number of places around the globe, border areas of countries that are 
not very effective countries, in which criminals can gather and nobody 
does anything about it. It gets worse and worse, and terrorists nest 
there. The most dramatic example of that, of course, is this very long 
and very large border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where many 
think Osama bin Laden hides out today. Some ask why isn't it possible 
for us to find him? It is a very large area. It is basically an area 
that has not been controlled effectively by the Governments of Pakistan 
or Afghanistan, and as a result, it is far more difficult.
  I just came from there last week and had a briefing on this specific 
area. If anyone heard the briefing I had, there would be a far greater 
understanding of how difficult it is to control these areas.
  A great nation like the United States has to do better. We cannot 
allow that tendency to occur in our country. I believe we can say with 
some integrity and honesty that tends to be what is happening here on 
our border.
  Last night, I had an exchange with Senator Kyl in the Senate, and he 
talked about the increasing number of people who are involved in crime 
on the Arizona-Mexico border. Many are not from Mexico. Many are from 
further south, from other countries, who come into Mexico, but it is an 
area in which they operate, move drugs, extort, carry people, and it is 
not a healthy situation at all. It is something a great nation, if we 
care about the people who want to live here and come into our country 
legally, should be very concerned about.
  The United States felt the sharp consequences of open borders and lax 
enforcement when our ineffective immigration policies enabled 19 
terrorists to obtain visas into the United States on September 11. 
September 11 was not the only act of terrorism on U.S. soil, though, 
that has resulted from poor immigration policies.
  Let's talk about the Brooklyn subway plot. People may have forgotten 
that. Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer was caught by the Border Patrol agents 
three times while trying to illegally cross the Canadian border. After 
a third apprehension, Canada would not take him back. Because the 
United States suffers from a severe lack of detention space for illegal 
aliens like Mezer, what happened to him? Canada would not take him 
back. He was released into the country on bail with a promise that he 
would show up for a hearing at which he would be deported. So he wants 
to come to this country, he is apprehended for the third time, Canada 
will not let him come back, and they release him on a promise that he 
will show up for a hearing on whether he should be deported. It sounds 
like, based on those facts, he probably was confident he would be. 
While waiting for his hearing, Mezer busied himself by plotting to bomb 
the Brooklyn subway.
  Mohammad Salameh, one of the World Trade Center bombing 
coconspirators in the first World Trade Center bombing attempt in 
1993--more than an attempt; an explosion that did not bring down the 
building applied for a tourist visa to the United States. Although 
Mohammad Salameh overcame the presumption that he was required to 
overcome as a single male, young, and received a visa, he overstayed 
the visa and remained illegally in the United States. We passed 
amnesty. He applied then to be a permanent resident. It was rejected. 
Somebody caught it somehow and saw something there. What did he do? He 
applies for amnesty under the 1986 act, and they reject it. So what 
does that mean? Was he sent home? No, he just simply remained in the 
United States. Nobody bothered to come and look for him. He continued 
living and working here because there was no enforcement mechanism in 
place allowing authorities to detain and remove rejected green card 
applicants.
  Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the 1993 trade bombing, was legalized 
as a part of the 1986 amnesty, also. It was only after he was legalized 
that he was able to travel outside the United States. The trips he took 
after being

[[Page 4673]]

granted amnesty included several to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he 
received the training he used in the bombing.
  Most people who seek to stay in our country are good and decent 
people. They are not terrorists. We know that. But we have an 
increasing number of criminals from around the world seeking to enter 
this country, and we have the terrorist problem.
  Abounalima took advantage of the amnesty. He got approved. Proper 
background checks apparently were not conducted, and he then, as a 
permanent legal resident, green card holder, was free to travel back 
and forth around the world and go to Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is 
where he got his training for the 1993 bombing.
  The mastermind of the 1993 bombing was Ramzi Yousef. He did not waste 
time applying for a visa to come to the United States. Upon his arrival 
at JFK Airport, he simply applied for asylum, saying he was persecuted. 
There was a lack of detention space while they were trying to determine 
his status. They said to this man who illegally appeared at John F. 
Kennedy Airport--You are here illegally; we will arrest you. And he 
says: I claim asylum; I am here because I have been run out of my 
country. So he is entitled, now, to a trial or a hearing on that. But 
they cannot do it that day, and they do not have any place to put him, 
so they release him. They parole him into the country until a hearing 
can be held on his asylum claim. Yousef then used that time inside the 
United States to plan the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Tower.
  Not only have our amnesty, visa issuance, and asylum policies brought 
terrorists into the United States, our programs have also served as a 
conduit for criminals and terrorists.
  Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, murdered two people at the El Al counter at 
Los Angeles International Airport in July 2002. Less than a year after 
9/11, Hadayet conducted that attack at the airport which resulted in 
the murder of two people.
  He received legal status through the diversity lottery visa in this 
fashion: In 2002, Hadayet was a visa overstayer. He got a visa, came 
here, but he stayed illegally beyond the time he was supposed to stay. 
In his asylum claim, when they confronted him about it, he claimed that 
he was entitled to asylum, too. That is a good thing to say because 
that stops the works. So he claimed asylum. But a hearing was held, and 
the determination was that he was not entitled to asylum. It was 
rejected.
  But with no mechanism, no will and no capacity to tell the truth, to 
remove him, he just stayed in the United States with his wife. Then 
Hadayet's wife won the diversity visa lottery. She got a green card and 
she was able to get one for her husband. So both of them were 
legalized. That is how he got into the country--not a way it should 
have happened. Once his asylum had been rejected, he should have been 
removed.
  Now, we have been reading in the paper about Zacarias Moussaoui, who 
just confessed, apparently, to his intent to participate in the 
September 11 bombings in plane attacks in our country. He entered the 
country under the visa waiver program, and he just confessed that he 
was to fly a plane into the White House.
  I would like to share a few more things about the ineffectiveness of 
our system. Most of the people who come here are not criminals. Most of 
the people who come here have legitimate reasons. They ought to wait 
until we are able to check their records and verify they are an 
appropriate person to come in our country. That is how the system is 
supposed to work. But the truth is, we are seeing a larger number of 
criminals coming in than we ever have before.
  Criminals from other countries, and those who would commit crimes, 
also use the immigration system against us.
  On December of 2005, Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security, testified that the Border Patrol 
encountered 1.1 million illegal aliens attempting to cross the 
southwest border between the legitimate ports of entry illegally.
  Just a few weeks ago, a Department of Homeland Security employee told 
us that approximately 12 percent--12 percent--of the people apprehended 
already had criminal records. That is 139,000 people. So for those they 
apprehended, they did a background check on them, and they found that 
12 percent of those had a criminal record already, totaling 139,000 
people.
  In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security deported over 88,000 
criminal aliens. Those removals accounted for over 40 percent of the 
people who were removed. Now, these are not simple immigration 
violations. They are serious offenses: fraud, drugs, extortion, or 
violence.
  If we catch one criminal entering the country, each year, for every 
criminal entering the country we do not catch--and some say that is 
about correct--it is highly likely the United States received a net 
gain, in 2004, of 51,000 criminals, none of whom should have been 
allowed in the country if an appropriate system were operating.
  A great nation does not have to accept everybody who wants to come. 
No nation does--not everybody. So we set standards. One of the 
standards is, people are not allowed in the country who have criminal 
records or charges are pending against them.
  Now, the numbers of criminal aliens in the country is startling, I 
have to tell you. I wish it were not so, but I am just telling you what 
the numbers are. Criminal aliens now constitute a large percent of all 
the Federal prisoners in Federal prisons today. How many? What percent 
would you suspect? I will have to tell you, it is an astounding 27 
percent. Twenty-seven percent of the Federal prisoners today are 
illegal aliens, criminal aliens.
  In 2003, that means 44,000 criminal aliens were serving sentences in 
Federal jails. This is just the Federal jails, which probably represent 
10 percent of all the prisoners in the United States. I believe those 
percentages could be even higher in State and local prisons. And I 
understand in some States it may be even higher, like in California and 
others.
  An April of 2005 a GAO, Government Accountability Office, report 
found that the number of criminal aliens incarcerated in the United 
States increased 15 percent from 2001 to 2004. That is a steady and 
substantial increase.
  According to the Bureau of Prisons, the cost of incarcerating 
criminal aliens totaled approximately $1.2 billion in 2004.
  Now, again, I am not saying that we need to reject people and stop 
immigration and never allow anybody into our country because we are 
having an increasing number of people who attempt to come here who are 
criminals. What I am saying is, we need to make our system work so we 
can identify those people who have criminal histories and not allow 
them in and allow the good and decent people in. Isn't that what it is 
all about? It is a very important point.
  Criminal aliens are also having a severely negative impact at the 
State and local level. Recently, an ICE agent--those are the 
immigration enforcement officers--in Alabama contacted me to tell me 
there is an enormous, growing problem with aliens trafficking drugs 
across north Alabama. Who would think that? He informed me that all of 
the green card holders he arrests for criminal convictions for 
trafficking dope were once illegal aliens but have been granted amnesty 
somewhere along the way.
  To quote him directly, he said--this is what he told me:

       [It is] because they had no respect for the law when they 
     jumped the river, worked illegally, and used fake documents 
     with false names.

  That is what he said. Who can say there is no truth to that? I think 
there is some truth to that. Simply giving an illegal alien a green 
card does not suddenly make that person a law-abiding citizen. We need 
to make sure we have ascertained, when a person applies to come into 
our country by visa, or to obtain a green card, that they are law- 
abiding citizens who are going to contribute positively to our country.
  I like to tell my friends in Texas the whole story about Alabama. 
Perhaps

[[Page 4674]]

Georgia has a spin on it. It probably has a little spin on it, I say to 
the Presiding Officer. But the story was: If somebody got in trouble 
with the law in Alabama, and you went to their house, they would have 
``GTT'' on the door. What did that stand for? ``Gone To Texas.'' In the 
old days, they did not have many prisons, and basically if you got out 
of town, that was fine.
  I am wondering, sometimes, if people who are getting in trouble in 
their home countries are not finding it easier than being arrested and 
put in jail in their own country to just leave town. And if they leave 
town, maybe the local police and constabularies are happy to have them 
go and do not mind what happens to them. I am afraid some of that may 
be occurring here. I suspect in the early days, Georgia sent their 
people to Alabama, Mr. President. I don't know. Of course, your State 
was founded--I will not get into that story.
  The next story from Alabama ICE agents was surprising to me. In 
December of last year, in the past few months, they arrested, in the 
north Alabama area, a leader of the MS-13 street gang--that is 
basically an El Salvadorian violent street gang--for possessing a 
stolen firearm. ICE had to release the gang member from custody a 
couple months later because the judge determined that he derived U.S. 
citizenship from his father who received amnesty in the 1990s and was 
naturalized when the gang member was 17. Normally, as a noncitizen, 
being charged with this offense, he would be deported.
  A few weeks ago, just 30 days after being released from custody, the 
gang leader was again arrested, this time for firing eight rounds out 
of a car at a rival gang member in the town of Pelham, AL. Because he 
received citizenship through amnesty, Alabama will not see him 
deported.
  The guy the gang leader shot at is the area leader of the Brown Pride 
13 street gang, which is another street gang. ICE tells me this gang 
leader is also a once-illegal alien who received amnesty and a green 
card.
  Now, we want to give amnesty to the people who deserve it. But we 
need to create a system that when we do that we have examined them to 
make sure they are the kind of people who would make good citizens. 
That is what we tell the American people we are going to do. That is 
what we tell them we are going to do. We tell them this bill sets up a 
lawful system for people to apply to immigrate to our country and that 
before they are allowed to immigrate and become a citizen, get a 
permanent status to stay here permanently, that we have checked them 
out. I am saying to you, too often we fail to do that. It is a hollow 
promise. ICE, in dealing with this gang leader, must wait for him to be 
convicted of a crime for him to be arrested.
  Unlike any of us, these Federal agents are in the trenches every day 
working hard to enforce the law, of which most of us only hear about on 
the news. As this ICE agent told me, he gets aggravated that people do 
not realize that yet another amnesty or allowance for adjustment of 
status will only ensure that the Government rubberstamps more criminals 
into our country and allows them to receive green cards. He is worried 
about that.
  I think if we took care and did it right, that might not be the case. 
I believe we can do it. But we have to be fully aware and take 
intentional steps or his prediction will be correct. And based on what 
he has seen in his experience, I have no doubt that he is somewhat 
cynical about the willingness of our Congress to take the necessary 
steps to make sure it does not happen.
  Around the country we are seeing an increase in the number of illegal 
criminal aliens who are being apprehended, some with access to critical 
infrastructure and information pertaining to national security 
interests.
  Jerry Seper of the Washington Post has written about these issues for 
some time. I have noted with some interest his accounts that 
demonstrate the gaping holes in our immigration enforcement and 
security policies. Let's share some examples of what he reported.
  In May of 2004, John Torres, Deputy Director for Smuggling and Public 
Safety, of ICE, the Immigration Service, testified before the House 
Judiciary Committee that criminal organizations worldwide make over 
$9.5 billion a year smuggling foreign nationals. This is his testimony 
before the House Judiciary Committee, the Government official at ICE, 
that these criminal organizations make over $9.5 billion a year 
smuggling foreign nationals, illicit drugs, and weapons into the United 
States.
  This smuggling includes as many as 17,500 people forced to work as 
prostitutes. We have heard about the sex slave prostitution problem. He 
says it includes as many as 17,500 sweatshop laborers and domestic 
servants. Mr. Torres testified that these well-established smuggling 
and trafficking pipelines serve as conduits for illegal immigrants and 
criminals seeking entry into the country. Many of these people are 
easily exploited by terrorists and extremist organizations. It is these 
people who will be granted amnesty under many of the proposals 
currently pending on the floor. This is a prime example of why we must 
focus on enforcement and border protection before anything else.
  That is what the House decided to do. People say the House bill is 
harsh. The House bill is not harsh in the sense that it simply examined 
our enforcement procedures and found them totally lacking. They 
concluded the most honest way to deal with the problem was to confront 
border laxity and our enforcement mechanisms and get that under 
control. Once we have done that, then we could go to the American 
people with a plan to determine how many people will come in in the 
future, how many people are here, and how to handle those people who 
are here, many of them as fine and decent a people as anybody would 
ever want to know, working hard every day, contributing to our country. 
We do owe them fair and humane treatment. I will not support any bill 
that does not give them that. But the House said, as a first step, 
let's do that.
  We spent most of our time in the Judiciary Committee marking up the 
enforcement protections in the bill. But at the last day, this Monday, 
we dumped in about 100 pages or more of this issue, the more serious 
and complex issue of the people who are here, how to handle them, and 
who to allow in in the future. That is why we are a bit rushed. As a 
matter of fact, that bill was not even printed and received by the 
committee members. We did not know what the language was until it was 
finally printed Wednesday night at 8. Now they want us to pass this 
legislation dealing with the historic challenges in immigration going 
beyond improving enforcement to the entire philosophy and policy of our 
Nation for many years to come. We are not ready to do that. Certainly 
if we are, this bill is not the vehicle to do so.
  Last year in an isolated incident in Virginia, ICE agents arrested 
nine criminal aliens, six of whom had been previously convicted on 
aggravated felony charges, including child molestation, drug 
possession, and sexual assault. These aliens should have been deported 
on conviction. That is what the law says. These aliens were identified 
during an investigation that found they had attempted to obtain 
immigration benefits through the CIS, the immigration services agency, 
including work permits and permanent resident status. These are nine of 
the estimated 85,000 criminal aliens walking our streets today.
  Last March, ICE agents deported 37 criminal aliens rounded up in the 
Washington area, two of whom had ties to MS-13, the Salvadoran gang 
which operates within the region. This group of criminal aliens were 
people convicted of theft, assault, burglary, sexual battery, and 
malicious wounding. From the Washington area alone in 2004, ICE 
deported 819 criminal aliens. MS-13 has an estimated 2,000 members in 
northern Virginia alone. This is not your ordinary street gang. It is a 
malicious, violent gang involving alien and weapons smuggling, murder, 
robberies, burglaries, carjacking, extortion, rape, and aggravated 
assault.
  In May of 2005, ICE arrested 60 illegal aliens working as contract 
employees at a dozen critical U.S. infrastructure

[[Page 4675]]

sites nationwide, including seven petrochemical refineries, very much 
potential targets, three powerplants, a national air cargo facility, 
and a pipeline company. What these things demonstrate, when I talk 
about Alabama or northern Virginia, is that the system currently is not 
working. We can make it work. It is not that hard. We are pretty close 
to getting there. We have jumped 8 feet, but the ravine we need to jump 
across is 10 feet wide. Let's go the extra 2 feet. Let's get out there 
and create a legitimate enforcement mechanism that will guarantee that 
we are as open and friendly as we have always been to those who want to 
come to this country but with a system that does not allow criminals to 
take advantage of us, does not allow terrorists to take advantage of 
us. In fact, this bill fails to prohibit the entry into our country of 
criminals in an effective way. That is why Senator Kyl and Senator 
Cornyn have offered their amendment dealing with this particular issue. 
It absolutely needs to be a part of it. I was pleased that Senator 
Cornyn talked about the similarity between the bill we are moving today 
and the one we passed in 1986, which everybody agreed was amnesty. 
Black's Law Dictionary even defines amnesty by referring to the 1986 
bill in their definition. Everybody admitted in 1986, it was amnesty. 
People have said we are not for amnesty. We have campaigned on it. 
Virtually every Senator, every leader, even the President has said we 
are not for amnesty. But anything you try to do, they say: That is not 
amnesty.
  Is it not an automatic path to a green card and citizenship? Why 
isn't it automatic? Well, they have to pay $1,000. They have to pay 
their income taxes. Don't you have to pay your income taxes? What is 
this? You have to have a job. What do they come here for? To have a 
job. And then only the most part-time job with the most minimal proof 
would establish the work requirement. Basically it guarantees anybody 
here a path to citizenship as long as they don't get convicted of a 
felony. If you get convicted of a felony before you are deported today, 
the chances are very good you can maneuver your way out on bail and 
never be deported.
  A good system would take a person directly from the incarceration 
facility and move them directly out of the country. That is what we say 
we are going to do, but we don't.
  I have many more examples of situations in which we have not managed 
our immigration system well. As a result, illegal aliens have been 
caught working in nuclear plants and military bases in highly secret 
and sensitive areas of our country. We can do better than that. We 
absolutely can and we must do better than that.
  I join with my colleagues Senators Kyl and Cornyn in saying: We 
definitely need to fix this omission in the bill that came out of 
committee that fails to properly deal with those who would come into 
the country illegally who have a criminal record and who could be put 
on a path to amnesty if we don't work it correctly.
  I urge my colleagues, let's keep an open mind on the legislation. 
Let's remember that our Nation has some of the finest people you could 
ever want living and working here, but we need to deal with them fairly 
and humanely. We don't need to build a barrier around our country if it 
does not allow people to come here lawfully. We are a nation of 
immigrants and we always will and should welcome immigrants into the 
country, but we need to gain control of our borders. That includes 
physical barriers, virtual fences, improved enforcement, additional 
detention space, technology, and also workplace areas. If we eliminate 
the magnet of the workplace, if we take firm, effective steps on the 
border, we can reach that tipping point where people move from coming 
illegally into our country and we don't know then whether they are 
criminals. We move those people from the illegal path to entry into our 
country to a legal path. Isn't that what we want? Isn't that what we 
promised the American people time and again, when we have been asked 
about it in our States and on interview programs? We have all said 
that.
  The legislation before us won't get us there. If we vote for that and 
tell our people that it will do the job, I do not believe we will be 
correct. Let's fix it. Let's improve it. Then we can make it work.
  I yield the floor and 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be temporarily set aside in order for me to call up 
amendment No. 3215; provided further that at 4 p.m. on Monday, the 
pending amendments be temporarily set aside and Senator Mikulski be 
recognized in order to offer a first-degree amendment which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3215

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3215 and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3215.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To demonstrate respect for legal immigration by prohibiting 
   the implementation of a new alien guest worker program until the 
   Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to the President and the 
 Congress that the borders of the United States are reasonably sealed 
                              and secured)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. BORDER SECURITY CERTIFICATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary may not 
     implement a new conditional nonimmigrant work authorization 
     program that grants legal status to any individual who 
     illegally enters or entered the United States, or any similar 
     or subsequent employment program that grants legal status to 
     any individual who illegally enters or entered the United 
     States until the Secretary provides written certification to 
     the President and the Congress that the borders of the United 
     States are reasonably sealed and secured.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, yesterday I took the floor to speak at 
length about the legislation before us and to talk particularly about 
the history of amnesty in the past dealing with immigration. I talked 
about the dangerous step we would take if we created another 
opportunity to attract even more to come here without first having 
secured our borders. The amendment I have asked to be placed before the 
Senate today accepts a very simple premise, and that is that we have 
failed as a country to secure our borders. We continue to have those 
coming here illegally to work because it is easier than coming here 
legally. And until we stop that and shut that down, any program 
granting status to an illegal person in this country should never be 
implemented.
  In the insurance industry, swimming pools are entitled an attractive 
nuisance. In the business of immigration, American policy is an 
attractive nuisance. We are attracting people to come here the wrong 
way. We are not penalizing them for coming here the wrong way. And we 
are now allowing people to come here the right way, a seamless system 
that seems to work. So this amendment is merely a trigger. It says that 
notwithstanding what programs we adopt in the Senate before final 
passage, no program granting status to someone who is here illegally or 
may come here illegally in the future will take effect until the 
Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President of the 
United States and to the Congress that our borders are reasonably 
secure.
  I am not going to take a lot of time, but I want to repeat something 
I said yesterday: A month ago I took to the border myself along with 
Senator Coleman.
  We went to Tijuana and San Diego, Fort Huachuca in Arizona. We saw 
firsthand the mechanisms that are

[[Page 4676]]

available and being used today that will secure our border. We also saw 
firsthand the huge holes because we have neither funded the 
intelligence equipment and the eyes in the sky nor put the manpower on 
the border.
  I, for one, will hold myself responsible and will be a reminder to 
this entire Senate that when we pass an appropriations act this year 
for Homeland Security and enforcement of immigration and customs, if it 
doesn't include the unmanned aerial vehicles we need on the border and 
the agents we need to enforce immigration law, then we are turning our 
back on a problem that began in 1986 and has continued until this day, 
and that is the benign neglect of us to fund the necessary equipment, 
manpower, and material to make the laws of this country work to allow 
people to come here in the right way as easily as possible but with 
accountability, and the people who come here the wrong way, to know 
there is a consequence to pay.
  Human nature is human nature. People will respond when they know what 
the story is. Right now, they know the story is that it is easier to 
get here by sneaking in. In this measure, we send a signal that there 
will be no amnesty, no more free pass nor a continued flow of illegal 
people coming into this country. Instead, there will be consequences 
for ignoring the law, and there will be respect and appreciation for a 
normal, rational immigration process to work, so that America's labor 
needs are met, but America respects the borders between ourselves, the 
nation of Canada and the nation of Mexico.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the 
Senator's view that we need to certify that we have the enforcement 
system working for the immigration system before we make these other 
changes that allow people to be given amnesty or be given a right to 
stay here in some lawful way.
  The reason that is important is this: To boil it down in 1 minute 
before I yield the floor, the reason that is important is that once we 
pass the policies--the amnesty that is in this bill, or whatever 
policies we eventually pass--to deal with new immigration for years to 
come or to deal with those already here, that becomes law then. The 
problem has been that no President whom I know of--Presidents Carter, 
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush--has ever taken it as a personal 
interest to ensure that what happens on our borders actually works. So 
they have not asked for more money, more people or asked sufficiently 
for technology for it to work. And the Congress, as the Senator said, 
often doesn't fund it.
  So what are we saying? Fundamentally, what happened in 1986, I 
believe, was that amnesty was granted and the promise to create a legal 
system in the future never developed. We have a very rightful 
responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen again. I think that is 
the intent of the Senator's amendment. I look forward to studying it, 
and I thank him for offering it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask consent I be allowed to continue for 
a few minutes as though in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________