[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4692-4719]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2454, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant 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 be naturalized as a citizen of the 
     United States, to encourage and support the efforts of 
     prospective citizens of the United States to become citizens.
       Isakson amendment No. 3215 (to amendment No. 3192), 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.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until 
5:30 p.m. shall be equally divided between the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, or 
their designees.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised that consent has been worked 
out so that at 5:30 today, the Senate will proceed to a vote in 
relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 3210, to be followed by a vote 
in relation to the Alexander amendment No. 3193; provided further that 
no second degrees be in order to either amendment prior to those votes; 
and further that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to 
each vote.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is that a unanimous consent request? That 
has not been agreed to.
  Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had yielded to the Democratic leader 
expecting to have an opportunity to comment before the quorum call was 
put in order which I was unable to terminate. Now that I have the 
floor, I would like to report to my colleagues that we had a very 
productive hearing this morning on issues relating to immigration 
judicial review. The original draft of the chairman's mark had provided 
for cases to be consolidated in the Federal circuit. Since there was 
considerable controversy about that, it was decided that we ought to 
have a hearing.
  We had five judges in today: the chief judge of the Federal circuit, 
the chief judge of the Second Circuit, a judge from the Ninth Circuit, 
a former chief judge of the Second Circuit, and a fifth judge from the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

[[Page 4693]]

  We heard a number of opinions on the desirability of having 
consolidation but perhaps an alternative to being in the Federal 
circuit. We are now considering those matters. We will be discussing 
them with other members of the committee. It may be that we will choose 
to revise the chairman's mark to provide that the cases will be evened 
out among the various circuits.
  With the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit now having a 
disproportionate number, the suggestion was made by Judge Newman, 
former chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, that 
there be a court created, perhaps to sit in Washington, although not 
indispensably so, where the judges would be selected from circuit 
judges and selected by the chief justice to maintain that judges review 
these matters as generalists as opposed to specialists. We will 
consider that.
  We heard discussion about the chairman's mark on increasing the 
number of active judges on the Board of Immigration Appeal so that the 
full 23 would sit and the provision that they sit in panels so that 
they write opinions, not just a one-sentence decision, which is now the 
case and which puts a considerable burden on the courts of appeal. We 
also discussed the possibility of having greater independence of the 
immigration judges and the members of the Board of Immigration Appeal. 
In due course, we will be drafting a revised title and will be 
submitting that for consideration by the full body.
  That is a very brief statement of the hearing that we held today. 
Again, I urge our colleagues who have amendments--Senator Leahy joins 
me in that request--to come to the floor and debate them. We have a big 
job ahead of us to complete action on this bill before the end of the 
week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes from my 
colleague and friend, Senator Leahy.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I--and I know 
the time is being divided--be recognized as the next Democratic speaker 
following Senator Kennedy's presentation, intermingled with Republican 
speakers as well.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator wishes to follow Senator 
Kennedy?
  Mr. DORGAN. I wish to follow the next Republican speaker.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, immigration is the story of American 
history. From the earliest days of our Nation, generation upon 
generation of immigrants have come to be part of a land that offers 
freedom and opportunity to those willing to do their part. Immigrants 
built our great cities. They cultivated our rich farmlands. They built 
the railroads and highways that bind America from sea to shining sea. 
They erected houses of worship to practice their faiths. They fought 
under America's colors in our wars. In fact, 60,000 immigrants are 
fighting in the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan today. 
Immigrants worked hard so that their children could embrace the ever-
widening possibilities in our land. And over the centuries, immigrants 
came to America from every part of the globe and made the American 
dream. They created a Nation that is the envy of the world.
  That is our history. But it is also our present and our future.
  We heard the moving immigration story anew here in the Senate just 
last week as Senator Domenici eloquently described his family's 
immigrant roots. He told how his parents came from Italy with nothing. 
His father earned his citizenship through his service in the U.S. Army 
in the First World War. His mother remained an undocumented immigrant 
until much later in life. In fact, she was arrested by the immigration 
authorities many years after coming to America, but she was able to 
gain legal status, remain in the country and later become a citizen. 
The Domenicis worked hard, learned English, built a successful grocery 
business, and their children went on to have successful professional 
careers. And, as we know, one became a distinguished and respected 
United States Senator.
  Last week, we also heard from Senator Martinez of Florida of his 
family's flight from Cuba to begin new lives in America. Young Mel 
Martinez was 15 years old when his family escaped from Cuba to seek a 
new life of freedom. Like millions before him, his family worked hard, 
learned English, and earned their success in Florida. And today, Mel 
Martinez not only was a Cabinet Secretary in the administration but was 
elected by the people of Florida to serve as their United States 
Senator.
  There are some in the Senate who seem to believe that immigrants are 
just criminals. In fact, the Frist bill that's before the Senate 
declares that all undocumented immigrants are criminals. The Frist bill 
would have declared Senator Domenici's mother to be a criminal and the 
Kyl amendment would disqualify her from earning American citizenship.
  The facts tell a different story. Immigrants--including undocumented 
immigrants--continue to strengthen the fabric of America in thousands 
of different ways. As David Brooks observed in his column last week in 
the New York Times, Hispanic Americans and Hispanic immigrants in 
particular are less likely to divorce. Husbands and wives stay together 
and raise their children. Even though they may have less money than 
other Americans, they spend almost twice as much on music for their 
children, they spend more on gifts and family get-togethers, and they 
are more likely to support their elderly parents.
  The path of progress that we witnessed with the Martinez and Domenici 
families is familiar even today. By the second generation, most 
immigrant families have reached the middle class and they pay more than 
enough taxes to make up for the costs of their parents' generation. By 
the third generation, 90 percent of the grandchildren of Hispanic 
immigrants speak English fluently, and 50 percent of them marry non-
Hispanics. These patterns of assimilation are identical to those that 
characterized the children and grandchildren of Southern and Eastern 
European immigrants who came to the United States 100 years ago, and to 
the assimilation of German and Irish immigrants who came here 50 years 
before that.
  In many ways, our economy is more dependent on immigration than ever 
before. The arrival of new and young immigrant workers helps explain 
why America's economy grows faster than most of the aging European 
nations. According to the Aspen Institute, immigration will be the only 
source of growth in the prime age labor force in America in the next 
two decades. So America's choice really is between immigration and 
economic stagnation.
  However, even though immigration brings many benefits, there is no 
doubt that our current system is broken and fails to protect us and 
meet our Nation's needs. Our borders are out of control at a time of 
heightened concern about terrorism. Millions cross our borders and 
remain illegally, creating an underground society that is subject to 
abuse and that harms American wages and working conditions. Millions 
more enter through our airports and seaports as visitors but remain 
long after their visas expire. They come and remain because they wish 
to work and contribute, and our employers continue to offer them jobs. 
As a result, more than 11 million undocumented immigrants are living 
and working in America today.
  Many in Congress suggest that the answer is simply more enforcement. 
Just build more fences and hire more patrols and it will solve the 
problem.
  But we have tried that before and failed. We have spent more than $20 
billion over the past decade to build fences and triple our border 
patrols, but illegal immigration went up, not down. In the 1980s, the 
rate of illegal immigration was 40,000 people a year. Today, it is more 
than half a million. And the probability that a border

[[Page 4694]]

crosser will be apprehend has plummeted from 20 percent a decade ago to 
just 5 percent today.
  An enforcement-only approach to solving our immigration problems may 
make a good campaign slogan. But in reality it is a failed strategy 
that threatens our security and threatens American wages.
  That's why Senator McCain and I have proposed a comprehensive, common 
sense plan to make a real difference.
  An effective immigration strategy must have three parts.
  First, we must enhance and modernize our immigration enforcement 
capabilities, both at our borders and at worksites. To accomplish this, 
our bill enhances our capacity to monitor immigration flows and stop 
illegal entry. To do this, it doubles the number of Border Patrol 
agents over the next 5 years. And it builds roads, fences, and vehicle 
barriers in specific high-flow areas; adds significant new technology 
at the border to create a robust ``virtual fence''; develops new land 
and water surveillance plans; authorizes new permanent highway 
checkpoints near the border; and expands the exit-entry security system 
to all land borders and airports.
  Our bill increases our capacity to crack down on criminal syndicates 
that smuggle immigrants into the country and place them at great risk. 
To aid in this mission, it creates new Federal penalties for 
constructing border tunnels; new criminal penalties for evading or 
refusing to obey commands of immigration officers; and new criminal 
penalties for financial transactions related to money laundering or 
smuggling. And it creates new fraud-proof biometric immigration 
documents; increases access to anti-fraud detection resources; and 
improves coordination among Federal, State, local, and tribal efforts 
to combat alien smuggling.
  Our bill increases cooperation with Mexico to strengthen migration 
control at Mexico's southern border to deter migration from Central 
America through Mexico and into the United States. And it requires 
cooperation with other governments in the region to deter international 
gang activity.
  And our bill would reduce the job magnet in America by creating a 
universal electronic eligibility verifi-
cation system which will allow employers to tell which individuals are 
authorized to work in the United States. It will substantially increase 
penalties against employers who fail to comply with eligibility 
verification rules and add 5,000 new enforcement agents to back up 
these provisions.
  Second, we must address the presence of the 11 million undocumented 
workers who are here now.
  It is clear that we are not going to send them back. Many have 
American citizen children and even grandchildren, and deporting them 
would rip families apart. The massive roundup of 11 million people 
would create havoc in our communities and cost $240 billion. It would 
require 200,000 buses in a convoy that would stretch from Alaska to San 
Diego.
  These families want to continue working and contributing to our 
communities, and we should give them that opportunity not by offering 
an amnesty, but by allowing them to earn the right to remain.
  So under our plan, to earn their legal status and eventually apply 
for citizenship, they must pay a $2000 fine, work for six years, pay 
their taxes, learn English and civics, pass rigorous criminal and 
security background checks, and get in the back of the line behind 
those who have been waiting patiently to qualify for green cards.
  Unfortunately, yesterday on television Senator Frist mischaracterized 
our commonsense proposal. He called it an amnesty, when in fact nothing 
is forgiven, nothing is pardoned. Undocumented workers must earn the 
privilege of legal status and a path to American citizenship.
  And he said that our plan allows undocumented immigrants to jump to 
the front of the line, when our bill says plainly in black and white 
that they must wait in the back.
  We should conduct this debate based on fact, not fiction--thoughtful 
policy and not bumper sticker slogans.
  Earned legalization should not be available to criminal aliens and 
others who would undermine U.S. security, but we must not be fooled by 
the amendment offered last week by Senators Kyl and Cornyn. Our bill 
already excludes from earned legalization criminal aliens and any 
immigrant representing a security risk to the United States. The Kyl-
Cornyn amendment would also exclude literally millions of undocumented 
immigrants already living and working in this country because they 
previously failed to depart following an order to do so. Our analysis 
of DHS and INS statistics suggests that fully 95 percent of immigrants 
affected by the Kyl-Cornyn amendment would not be criminal aliens, but 
rather exactly the hardworking immigrants and families this program is 
designed to bring out of the shadows.
  The third and final element of a successful immigration strategy is 
to address future immigration. We must provide a path to earned 
legalization for those already here. But we must also address the 
continuing needs of our employers for workers and the reality that 
people will continue to come here to improve their lives and contribute 
to America.
  In the past, we have largely ignored these realities. We have turned 
our heads as people have come here to work and required them to remain 
in an underground economy.
  The head-in-the-sand policy cannot be allowed to continue. It is 
harmful to these workers who are subject to abuse by employers. It is 
harmful to employers who never know if their workers may be sent home 
tomorrow, and most of all it is harmful to American workers whose wages 
are cut because employers can get away with hiring undocumented workers 
at lower pay.
  Therefore, the plan that Senator McCain and I propose and that was 
adopted by the Judiciary Committee provides a strong and effective 
guest worker program for the future. It is far better for American 
workers if future immigrants come here legally with rights to fair 
wages and working conditions, rather than having to compete with 
illegal workers who are paid substandard wages. Isn't it better if an 
employer must pay an immigrant carpenter a standard wage like American 
workers than a substandard wage that drives down wages for everyone 
else? That is what our guest worker program would do.
  It is estimated that the American economy demands about 400,000 new 
low-skilled immigrants each year, but our current immigration system 
grants only 5,000 visas to these workers. That is why we have more than 
11 million undocumented workers today. There simply are not enough 
visas to go around.
  To meet future needs, our guest worker program takes the commonsense 
step of starting with a 400,000 annual quota and allows the quota to be 
adjusted up or down in future years based on the needs of the economy.
  Taking this realistic step would free up our enforcement efforts to 
focus not on those who yearn to breathe free--they should be welcomed 
as guest workers who contribute to America. We should concentrate our 
enforcement resources on those who would truly harm us--the criminals, 
the drug smugglers, and especially the terrorists. That should be the 
priority for our time, and that is the priority of the McCain-Kennedy 
legislation.
  Enhanced enforcement, earned legalization for those who are here, and 
a realistic guest worker program for the future--that is a plan for 
success, and the American people know it. It is a plan that Time 
magazine reports is supported by more than three-quarters of the 
American people, and they support it because they know our three-part 
plan increases our security, respects our values, and strengthens our 
progress. In fact, poll after poll finds that between two-thirds and 
three-quarters of all Americans favor a new program to allow temporary 
visas for future essential workers, and an even higher proportion favor 
allowing undocumented immigrants into the United States to earn 
citizenship if they learn English, have a job, and pay taxes.

[[Page 4695]]

  In contrast, in a Time magazine poll conducted last week, just one in 
four Americans favor making illegal immigration a crime and preventing 
anyone entering the country illegally from remaining in the country and 
working here. The American people want real comprehensive reform, not 
just more immigration enforcement.
  All three of these changes are necessary if we are to address the 
root causes of undocumented immigration and break the cycle of 
illegality which now corrodes our immigration system. All three of 
these changes are necessary if we are to ensure that immigrant families 
today, as in the past, continue to live the American dream and 
contribute to our prosperity, our security, and our values. All three 
of these changes are necessary if we are to be true to our heritage as 
a nation of immigrants.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe we are going back and forth, but 
since there is no one on the other side of the aisle seeking to claim 
time, let me claim time on our side. I ask unanimous consent to speak 
for up to 25 minutes against our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, at a time when our country sees so much of 
the outsourcing of good jobs and now the proposal to continue importing 
cheap labor, I think it is a strange set of circumstances that has a 
proposal on the floor of the Senate saying let's deal with immigration 
and the immigration problem in this country by adding to the 
immigration bill a so-called guest worker program that would allow 
400,000 additional people who now live outside our country to come into 
our country's labor force. They would do that with an escalator of 
potential 20 percent more than the 400,000 each year or, over 6 years, 
if they use the maximum, another 4.7 million immigrant workers into 
this country.
  Open the newspaper these days and take a look at the news: 
outsourcing of American jobs; good American jobs that pay well, with 
benefits, retirement, and health care, going to China, Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka, Bangladesh--outsourcing American jobs. In addition to 
outsourcing good American jobs, we are also insourcing, importing cheap 
labor.
  We now have 11 million immigrants in this country who are here 
illegally. This Chamber is full of talk these days about immigrants 
because we are on an immigration bill and will be until the end of this 
week. The question is, Where is the talk about American workers as we 
discuss the issue of immigrants and immigration reform? Where is the 
description of the plight of the American worker? Who is here 
describing the circumstances faced by American workers? There are many 
here speaking for immigrants, and I don't ever want to diminish the 
dignity or the worth of the immigrants who have come here over the life 
of this country and helped us build something very unusual on the face 
of this Earth.
  This country is a country made up of immigrants. I think everyone who 
stands on this floor would likely describe their great-grandparents or 
their grandparents or great-great-grandparents who came here from 
somewhere--mine from Norway, for example, and Sweden. But what we have 
built on this Earth is a country that is unique and unusual. It is a 
country that has created a standard of living which is almost 
unparalleled in the world: good jobs that pay well, the creation of a 
middle class, an expanded middle class where people had good incomes 
and those good incomes allowed them to increase their standard of 
living.
  Now we see a different kind of circumstance in our country. We see 
the largest corporations that have become the preeminent economic 
entities, very large corporations that have described a different set 
of circumstances for themselves. What they like to do is produce 
somewhere else--send their jobs to China, for example--and then send 
the product back to this country to sell and then send their income 
through a Grand Cayman Island bank so they don't have to pay taxes. 
They ship the jobs overseas, ship the products here, and run the money 
through the Cayman Islands.
  In addition to all of that--and there is plenty of evidence that is 
going on wholesale; 3 million jobs lost to that sort of activity just 
in the last several years--in addition to that, at the same time these 
jobs are moving overseas and hurting the middle class in this country 
and shrinking opportunities for the people at the lowest rung of the 
economic ladder, we have people trying to get into this country.
  Why? Our country is an attraction to them because this is a place 
they want to come to get a job and make some money. In much of the 
world, they pay various substandard wages--different economies, less 
developed countries, undeveloped countries--and so this country has 
become a magnet for people who want to come here.
  I have described the circumstance some years ago when I was on a 
helicopter that ran out of gas somewhere between Honduras, Nicaragua, 
and El Salvador, up in the mountains in the jungles. After we ran out 
of power, after the fuel tank was empty, we landed, and the compesinos 
came to our helicopter to see who came through. I, through an 
interpreter, talked with some of them.
  I talked with a woman who had three children. After describing who we 
were and asking about her life, I said: What is it you would like to do 
with your life?
  She said: Oh, I would like to come to America; I would like to come 
to the United States.
  Why would you like to do that, I asked?
  Because that is where opportunity is, she said. Get a job, make some 
money, have opportunities for me and my children.
  That is not unusual. It wasn't unusual to hear that in Nicaragua or 
El Salvador, and it wouldn't be unusual to hear that in most parts of 
the world. If we had no immigration laws at all and we said tomorrow to 
any one else of this world's population of roughly 6.3 billion who want 
to come here: Come on along, you are welcome in this country. Come and 
stay. Come and grab a job, if you like--why don't we do that? Why do we 
have immigration laws? Why do we have quotas of the number of people we 
can allow in each year--and we do allow people in--why do we have those 
numbers? Simply because we can't absorb a massive inflow of immigration 
from around the world willing to work at substandard wages. We can't 
absorb that. The social services that are required to attend to it, the 
jobs they take, we can't do that. So we have a process called 
immigration by which people legally come into this country.
  People have come to this country illegally. It is estimated we now 
have 11 million people here illegally. I heard an actor--well, actually 
he is not much of an actor--but I heard this fellow on television 
yesterday on CBS, I believe it was, and he was doing his commentary 
about immigration. This is a fellow who has been wrong about most 
things, so it didn't surprise me what he said about immigration. He 
said: No one should call this illegal immigration. Well, I am sorry, 
but if people come here illegally, it is illegal immigration. We have 
11 million people here illegally.
  In addition, 1.1 million people tried to come across our southern 
border last year, but were stopped--1.1 million were stopped at our 
southern border trying to come into this country. In addition to that, 
somewhere between 400,000 and 700,000 people we estimate came into this 
country across the southern border illegally last year. Finally, above 
that number, 175,000 immigrated from Mexico last year legally. That is 
in addition to the other quotas from the other countries. So the fact

[[Page 4696]]

is, we have a very significant number who come into this country, and 
many of them come in illegally.
  So my colleagues bring an immigration bill to the floor and the 
President describes the need for an immigration bill, as well as the 
President of Mexico. What they say is: We can't arrest and detain and 
deport 11 million people. I understand that. I am not sure I know the 
solution to all of this, but I understand there is not going to be a 
sweep in this country to detain or deport or arrest 11 million people 
who are here illegally. We will have discussions about that portion of 
the bill and we will have amendments about that portion of the 
legislation. We will also have amendments about employer sanctions.
  I was here when the previous immigration bill was passed. The 
presumption was that if you make it illegal for employers to hire 
illegal aliens then, in that circumstance, they will have to pay a 
significant fine--the employer will--and they won't be hiring them. If 
the job is not the magnet to come here, it will shut down immigration 
at the border. That was all nonsense. It didn't work. I think last year 
three immigration cases were brought by this administration against 
employers who hired illegal immigrants. There has been no enforcement 
at all. So we are going to have discussions and amendments about that 
portion of the legislation.
  Let me talk about the other piece, if I might, and that other piece 
is a guest worker program attached to this, saying, In addition to all 
of the other things that will be done in this legislation, including 
making legal 11 million people who came here illegally or giving them 
legal status, we have an addition called a guest worker program. The 
guest worker program is the proposition that 400,000 additional workers 
will be allowed in. These are people who are now living outside of our 
country. They will be allowed into our country with a 20-percent 
escalator per year and, by the way, at the end of 6 the escalator works 
and they let these folks come in years, if, we will have 4.6 million 
additional guest workers who have come into this program in the 6-year 
period--4.6 million.
  Why are people saying this is necessary? They are saying it is 
necessary because Americans won't take these jobs. We can't find 
Americans who will take these jobs. Well, why do you suppose that might 
be the case, if it is the case? I dispute that, but let's assume it is 
the case. One of the reasons is those jobs don't pay enough. Since the 
big businesses don't want to raise salaries at the bottom, they say the 
solution to not having to raise salaries is to bring in immigrant 
workers who will work for less. Let's not worry about the Americans. If 
we can't find Americans to take the jobs at the minimum wage and, by 
the way, this Congress has decided for 8 years it will not increase the 
minimum wage--those folks, the working poor and others who work at the 
bottom of the economic ladder, have not had an increase in the minimum 
wage in 8 years. So the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, big business, and 
others say, What we need to do is to have a separate and additional 
guest worker program. In addition to the 11 million people, we need to 
have a guest worker program that could reach 4.6 million people in the 
next 6 years.
  Let me respond to this question of jobs that Americans won't do. This 
is what the research says. Construction jobs: 86 percent of the workers 
are American workers and other legal workers. Food preparation: 12 
percent are illegal immigrants; 88 percent of the food preparation 
workers are American workers and other legal workers. Manufacturing: 91 
percent American workers. Transport: 93 percent. These are the jobs 
that corporations and others say Americans won't take and, therefore, 
they have to bring in immigrant labor, new guest workers, 4.6 million 
additional people.
  While we are doing that, let's take a look at this issue of change in 
income for the American people. This happens to measure 1979 to 2003. 
You can see the top 1 percent of the American income earners are doing 
very well--lots of extra income, massive growth in their income. The 
bottom fifth: almost no growth in 25 years. In fact, some studies show 
they have actually lost ground. This shows that they have been stagnant 
for 25 years. So at the same time we have people saying, We need to 
bring in more immigrant workers to take these low-income jobs, we have 
people at the lower end of the economic scale in this country--and we 
have the middle-income workers as well--struggling, trying to figure 
out, What do they do next? How do they find a good job?
  About 30 years ago, the largest corporation in this country was 
General Motors. General Motors paid well, had good benefits, good 
retirement, good health care. Most people not only got good pay when 
they went to work there, they worked there for a lifetime. Now, the 
largest corporation is Wal-Mart--Wal-Mart. In the first year of 
employment, turnover I understand is about 70 to 80 percent. Wal-Mart 
pays very low wages. I believe the average income at Wal-Mart is 
$18,000 a year, and they pay very little benefits. Very few have health 
care. I think a third to just over a third have health care benefits, 
and those who do pay substantially more than is the employee's share in 
most other companies. That is what we have come to. So the middle-
income workers are looking for a replacement for those jobs that have 
been shipped overseas.
  I have spoken at length about the issue of outsourcing of jobs, and I 
won't do that today, but whether it is Huffy bicycles or Little Red 
Wagon Radio Flyer, Fig Newton cookies, Fruit of the Loom, or Levis or 
Tony Lama boots--I could go on forever--these are jobs Americans used 
to have, good jobs that paid well, almost always jobs with benefits--
gone, gone to China for somebody who will earn 33 cents an hour, 
probably working in Shenzhen, China, 12 to 14 hours a day, 7 days a 
week, to produce the product and ship it back to Wal-Mart, Kmart, and 
Sears to be sold to the American public, and then have the same 
companies run their income through the Cayman Islands to avoid paying 
taxes. That is interesting but not very good for this country, and 
exactly the wrong strategy for the long-term economic health of 
America.
  Employment rates for individuals lacking a high school diploma, you 
will see that nearly one-half of U.S.-born workers without a high 
school diploma are without a job. Immigrant workers, on the other hand, 
many of whom come here without a high school diploma, find work in high 
numbers. I have a picture of some immigrant workers that was given to 
me recently. These, by the way, were workers who came in by a 
contractor who hired them to help do work after Hurricane Katrina, 
undocumented workers who came into this country, and--by the way, at 
the hearing I held on this, one of the people who testified was a 
fellow who ran a Louisiana construction firm. His firm was hired by a 
Halliburton subcontractor to do electrical repair work in Louisiana 
after Hurricane Katrina. But the Halliburton subcontractor changed its 
mind, and they hired a good number of people to come in who were 
undocumented workers and who didn't have adequate training to do 
electrical work at this particular base. It is the sort of thing that 
is going on all the time, and I think it is hurting this country.
  So the question is for this Congress, Who is going to talk about 
American workers? I know the subject is about immigration, but it has a 
profound impact on American workers. So who is going to come here today 
to talk about American workers?
  We are told that the corporate strategy here is that they can't find 
additional American workers without paying higher wages and they don't 
want to pay higher wages because they want to keep costs down, so they 
are going to import additional workers. They are now called guest 
workers. By the way, these are nonagricultural, these guest workers. 
This is in addition to H-2A and H-2B workers, agricultural and 
nonagricultural, who will still exist under law. I haven't even 
described the people coming in under those two provisions. Yet we have 
people saying we must have this additional guest worker program.
  I understand people listening and those who feel very strongly that 
we have to have this immigration bill, including the guest workers, who 
will

[[Page 4697]]

say: What you are talking about is anti-immigrant. That couldn't be 
further from the truth. I indicated that I think immigrants contribute 
a great deal to this country. Most of us come as a result of some 
immigration back a generation or several generations in our family. But 
the question is: What are we going to do to fix this issue, and what 
are we going to do to balance the immigration legislation and the 
proposal for guest workers against the needs of American workers? I 
think what is going on here is going to pull the rug out from under 
American workers. I don't understand this at all.
  Let me put up a chart that shows the average wages--perhaps I should 
show you the New York Times story of March 17, a couple of weeks ago, 
about a businesswoman in New York. Sister Ping is her nickname. She was 
sentenced to 35 years for running one of New York City's most lucrative 
immigrant smuggling rings and for financing the infamous Voyage of 
Golden Venture, the rusty freighter that ran aground with 300 starving 
immigrants in its hold. Sister Ping said she would be happier in prison 
in the United States than free in her rural village in China.
  Let me describe what persuades Sister Ping and others to attempt to 
bring low-wage income earners to this country. A typical unskilled 
labor wage in Russia is 51 cents an hour. In Nicaragua, 37 cents an 
hour. In China, 33 cents an hour; in Bangladesh, 33 cents an hour; in 
India, 11 cents an hour; and in Haiti, 30 cents an hour. We are 
suggesting that we are short of workers here. We want another 400,000 
plus 20 percent every year for 6 years, or 4.7 million additional 
workers because we don't have enough workers in this country.
  What we don't have is enough courage and enough common sense to, 
first, increase the minimum wage and second, to tell those who are 
trying to employ immigrant labor at below standard wages, which they 
have done for years now, that you have to pay a decent wage at the 
bottom to get people to work, and that includes Americans. That 
includes our country's workers. If this Congress has some common sense, 
we don't need guest workers. That is the other side of this immigration 
debate, the extra guest workers. We don't need them. What we need 
employers to do is to pay a decent wage. What we need the Congress to 
do is to increase the minimum wage.
  We need to understand that American workers have worth. They want 
jobs. What is happening to them is good jobs are being exported 
overseas for these kinds of wages overseas, and then low-income jobs in 
this country are now going to be filled and have been filled by 
immigrant labor. So we are importing low-wage workers for jobs here and 
exporting high-wage, good jobs for jobs there. I am telling you I think 
that is a strategy to injure this country's economy. It is a strategy 
to hurt low-income American workers. It has been going on for some 
while now. But this memorializes it in an immigration bill.
  I don't understand at all why this is being seriously proposed. In 
fact, the President's proposal would have no limit. I talked about the 
400,000 plus a 20-percent escalator per year for so-called guest 
workers who now live outside of our country who will be told to come on 
in legally. The Congress has a 400,000-person plus a 20-percent 
escalator which, as I indicated, would relate to about 4.7 million 
workers over 6 years. But the fact is, the President's proposal has no 
limit at all; the sky is the limit. I am telling you, this is a U.S. 
Chamber-big business strategy. It is probably good for them. It allows 
them to import cheap labor. It probably keeps their costs low. But I 
will tell you what else it does: It pulls the rug out from American 
workers in a way that is very unfair.
  Having said all of that, it is not my intention to suggest that we 
don't have to deal with immigration issues. We do. I understand that. 
It is not my intention to suggest that anybody can round up or should 
even seriously consider rounding up 11 million people and deporting 
them. That is not going to happen. I was in the Congress when the 
Simpson-Mazzoli bill was passed dealing with immigration. It was going 
to fix immigration. Immigration problems have become much worse.
  This proposal, the Simpson-Mazzoli proposal, was described as a 
proposal that would say that the attraction--the magnet--for immigrants 
coming into this country is a job. Take away the job, you take away the 
attraction or the magnet. How do you take away the job? You tell 
employers in this country, if you hire people who are here illegally, 
you are going to pay a real price for it. You are going to be slapped 
with a big fine. You are going to have a big problem.
  Guess what--they didn't even get hit with a feather duster. Not a 
thing. As I said, last year there were three enforcement cases against 
American businesses that hired illegal labor. I just heard of one the 
other day in our part of the country. An employer from one of the big 
cities up near our area hired some illegal immigrants to come in and do 
a construction project. They were caught. The question was, for the 
local State's attorney, the question for the attorney general's office 
and others, is anything going to happen? No, nothing is going to 
happen. No action is going to be taken. It has been that way for years. 
The result is that the so-called Simpson-Mazzoli bill meant nothing.
  My colleagues say now we are going to really enforce things at the 
border. If we have a guest worker provision, somehow we will not have 
additional people coming across the border because we will allow about 
4.7 million of them in illegally in addition to the 11 million who are 
here. I don't understand why they believe allowing 450,000-plus a year, 
or 4.7 million in 6 years, potentially--how that is going to stop 
others who want to come in. We have an inexhaustible number of people 
working around the world at dirt-cheap wages. We have an inexhaustible 
appetite in this country, for businesses, apparently, to hire people at 
substandard wages. So how is it you are going to plug this border? I 
don't see it in this bill.
  We are told we don't really plug the border. What you really do is 
invite up to 4.7 million additional people in, and therefore that cuts 
the appetite for people to come in. It is total nonsense. That is not 
going to do it at all. It just isn't. All it is going to do is 
undermine American workers at the bottom of the economic ladder. That 
is what it does. I don't understand why this issue is brought to the 
floor of the Senate with guest workers.
  I mentioned the other day a story about FDR. Let me close with that.
  Franklin Delano Roosevelt's funeral was being held. Before his 
funeral, his body lay in State here in the Capitol Building, and there 
were long lines to view the casket of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The 
journalists were trying to get color pieces for their stories. A 
journalist walked up to a man who was holding his cap in his hands, a 
working man. He had been standing for some long while in line to file 
past the casket of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
  The journalist asked him: Did you know President Roosevelt?
  The working guy said: No, but President Roosevelt knew me.
  The question is, Who knows American workers now? Yes, President 
Roosevelt did know American workers. He is the person who got us the 
Fair Labor Standards Act. He stood up for American workers. Who knows 
American workers now? Is there any discussion about American workers as 
we talk about immigration on the floor of the Senate, a subject that 
will have such a profound impact on jobs in this country? Is there any 
discussion about American workers? I don't hear it, regrettably.


                Amendment No. 3223 to Amendment No. 3192

  Mr. DORGAN. I am also today going to offer an amendment numbered 
3223, which I believe is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask that we call up amendment No. 3223.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page 4698]]

  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Ms. Snowe, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Jeffords, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3223 to amendment No. 3192.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To allow United States citizens under 18 years of age to 
  travel to Canada without a passport, to develop a system to enable 
 United States citizens to take 24-hour excursions to Canada without a 
     passport, and to limit the cost of passport cards or similar 
                   alternatives to passports to $20)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TRAVEL TO CANADA.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Common 
     Sense Cross-Border Travel and Security Act of 2006''.
       (b) Travel to Canada Without Passport.--Section 7209(b) of 
     the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
     (Public Law 108-458) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary'';
       (B) by striking ``This plan'' and inserting the following:
       ``(B) Day passes.--The plan developed under this paragraph 
     shall include a system that would enable United States 
     citizens to travel to Canada for a 24-hour period without a 
     passport by completing an application for a `day pass' at any 
     port of entry along the land border between the United States 
     and Canada, and certifying that there was not sufficient time 
     to apply for a passport before the excursion. The traveler 
     shall not be charged a fee to acquire or use the day pass.
       ``(C) Implementation.--The plan developed under this 
     paragraph''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Minors.--United States citizens who are less than 18 
     years of age, when accompanied by a parent or guardian, shall 
     not be required to present a passport when returning to the 
     United States from Canada at any port of entry along the land 
     border.''.
       (c) Limit on Fees for Travel Documents.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law or cost recovery requirement 
     established by the Office of Management and Budget, the 
     Secretary and the Secretary of State may not charge a fee in 
     an amount greater than $20 for any passport card or similar 
     document other than a passport that is created to satisfy the 
     requirements of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458).
       (d) Acceptance of Passport Cards and Day Passes by 
     Canada.--The Secretary of State, in consultation with the 
     Secretary, shall negotiate with the Government of Canada to 
     ensure that passport cards and day passes issued by the 
     Government of the United States for travel to Canada are 
     accepted for such purpose by the Government of Canada.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator 
Snowe, Schumer, Burns, and Jeffords. I will just briefly describe the 
amendment that I hope we will consider this week. It deals with cross-
border traffic between the United States and Canada and the issue of 
the card that is being considered by the State Department in lieu of a 
passport that would be required for United States-Canada cross-border 
traffic.
  The amendment is quite simple. It would provide, for children under 
18--that is, 17 and under--who are accompanied by parents moving cross-
border, they would not need one of these new cross-border cards. It 
would provide that there be an opportunity for the State Department to 
offer 3-day passes for those who are simply on a 1-day cross-border 
trip and would also provide that these new cards which would be 
required in lieu of passports cost no more than $20.
  As you know, it takes over $90 to purchase a passport. That is not an 
inconsiderable sum. It takes some while to get a passport. If you have 
a family of four or five going up to Winnipeg or Regina, the northern 
part of our State--we have a 4000-plus mile border--for a family of 
four or five going to see a relative, if we have a passport 
requirement, that is pretty dramatic. We have always been able to use 
our driver's license, and the Department of Homeland Security says that 
is going to be replaced by a passport. We complained about that. They 
said: All right, what we will require is a passport card. We don't know 
the specifics of that card, but what we want to make sure of is that 
card not be prohibitive for families. I don't have any problem with 
requiring a standardized card, but I don't believe it should cost more 
than $20. I don't believe it should be required for children under 17 
traveling with their parents. There also ought to be exceptional 
circumstances, with proper identification, for those who make day 
trips.
  As I said, I am joined in this amendment by many of my colleagues 
from the border States, including Senator Snowe from Maine, Senator 
Schumer from New York, Senator Burns from Montana, and Senator Jeffords 
from Vermont. I hope we can have some discussion and debate and hope in 
the conduct of the debate on this immigration bill that we may include 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I sat here with interest, listening to 
the Senator from North Dakota. I think we agree on an awful lot. I may 
not agree with everything he said, but he made some very salient points 
with respect to the earlier laws we have passed on this issue of 
immigration and the amnesty--that is what it amounted to--that was 
given to certain folks who were included in the previous immigration 
bill the Senator addressed. He is exactly right. It didn't work back 
then. While there are provisions in this bill, some of which I may 
agree with--they may be good--there are certain other points in this 
which simply are not very good pieces of legislation
  I would like to take a moment to speak on the amnesties that exist in 
the immigration bill passed by the Judiciary Committee that is now 
under discussion on the floor. Some in the Senate like to call it 
something else--earned adjustment or earned citizenship--to try to 
distinguish it from what Congress has done in the past. However, I 
believe that the legislation adopted by the Judiciary Committee is so 
similar to the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act passed by 
Congress, which everyone agrees is amnesty, that in fairness, what the 
Senate is being asked to consider today should likewise be called 
amnesty.
  One reason why I am opposed to amnesty, or earned legalization, is 
because the last time Congress addressed what to do about the illegal 
population in our country, a similar approach was agreed upon, and it 
did not work. In the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, increased 
enforcement, both at the border and in the interior of the U.S., and 
especially with regards to employer sanctions was mandated to eliminate 
the jobs magnet for so many illegal immigrants. In addition, the theory 
was that our increased border security would stem the tide of illegal 
immigrants coming into the country.
  Coupled with this enforcement was an amnesty offered to illegal 
aliens who met specified requirements in order to bring them out of the 
shadows and allow them to acquire legal status. There were actually two 
amnesties included in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986--
the Legally Authorized Workers--LAW--program and the Special 
Agricultural Worker Program--SAW.
  Similarly in the bill put forth by the Judiciary Committee, there are 
mandates for increased border security and interior enforcement as well 
as a strong emphasis on employer sanctions. Coupled with this also 
exists two amnesties: one for the estimated 11 million illegal aliens 
currently in the U.S. and another for illegal aliens working in 
agriculture.
  The 1986 SAW Program required that illegal aliens work a certain 
number of hours in agriculture in order to obtain a temporary legal 
status. Then 1 to 2 years after obtaining a temporary legal status, 
those agricultural workers were given permanent residency status. Now, 
every Senator I have seen come to the floor has called this 1986 SAW 
program an amnesty, yet many maintain that the current Judiciary 
Committee proposal is not an amnesty.
  However, the current agricultural program in the Judiciary Committee 
bill is constructed in much the same way: Illegal aliens who worked 150 
hours in agriculture in the 2-year period ending on December 31, 2005, 
can

[[Page 4699]]

obtain a temporary legal status, here called a blue card. Then by 
working 100 hours per year in agriculture for 5 years or by working 150 
hours per year in agriculture for 3 years, that illegal alien will be 
given permanent resident status. So the only difference between a 
program that is unanimously agreed upon to be amnesty and one that is 
argued not to be is the requirement that the illegal aliens work in 
agriculture for 100 to 150 hours per year. The waiting time instead of 
1 to 2 years is now 3 or 5, but that is it. The rest is the same.
  These illegal aliens are not required to work in any other industry 
or for any greater amount of time than 100 hours per year or 150 hours 
per year. Not only that but they do not have to wait in line behind 
everyone outside the country trying to legally enter the U.S. in order 
to get their permanent resident status. Not only is this unfair, but it 
is a repeat of the 1986 approach, which is widely recognized as 
seriously flawed.
  We should not repeat the mistakes we made before. I am not the only 
one who feels this way. I recently attended a naturalization ceremony 
in Atlanta, GA, and was moved to see a room full of people from all 
over the world raise their right hand and take an oath of allegiance to 
the U.S. It was clearly a proud day for these people and their loved 
ones. They had gone through the legal process and truly earned their 
citizenship. I was surprised at the number of new citizens who came up 
to me after the ceremony and asked me to reject the amnesty the Senate 
is now being asked to consider. These folks told me they felt it 
demeans the efforts they made to obey the law and wait in line to 
become a U.S. citizen. They realize what a valuable accomplishment they 
made.
  The people I saw at that naturalization ceremony truly earned their 
citizenship. It does not seem fair to me to call the process those 
newly naturalized citizens followed ``earned citizenship'' and also to 
call what the Judiciary Committee is asking the Senate to consider 
``earned citizenship.'' There is a fundamental difference between the 
two and that should be recognized in the rhetoric of the Senate.
  Another problem I have with the agricultural amnesty endorsed by the 
Judiciary Committee is that it does not seem to remedy the problem with 
fraud that was prevalent with the 1986 SAW program. Under the 1986 SAW 
program, illegal farm workers who did at least 90 days of farm work 
during a 12-month period could earn a legal status.
  The illegal immigrants had to present evidence that they did at least 
90 days of farm work, such as pay stubs or a letter from an employer or 
even fellow workers. Because it was assumed that many unauthorized farm 
workers were employed by labor contractors who did not keep accurate 
records, after a farm worker presented evidence that he had done 
qualifying farm work, the burden of proof shifted to the Government to 
disprove the claimed work.
  The Government was not prepared for the flood of SAW applicants and 
had little expertise on typical harvesting seasons. Therefore an 
applicant who told a story like ``I climbed a ladder to pick 
strawberries'' had that application denied while those who said ``I 
picked tomatoes for 92 days'' in an area with a picking season of only 
70 days, was able to adjust.
  Careful analysis of a sample of SAW applications in California, where 
most applications were filed, suggests that most applicants had not 
done the qualifying farmwork, but over 90 percent were nonetheless 
approved.
  The propensity for fraud is not remedied in the Judiciary Committee's 
bill and compounds bad policy with the ability for unscrupulous actors 
to take advantage of it.
  I think the most important lesson to learn from the 1986 SAW program 
is that providing illegal immigrants who work on the farms in this 
country does not benefit the agricultural workforce for long. History 
shows that the vast majority of illegal workers who gain a legal status 
leave agriculture within a 5-year period. This means that under the 
Judiciary Committee's proposed agricultural amnesty, those who 
questionably performed agricultural work in the past will work at least 
100 or 150 hours in agriculture per year for the next 3 to 5 years. But 
after that, particularly in light of the changes made to the H-2A 
program, I expect us to be in the same situation in agriculture that we 
are in today.
  It is worth noting that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
1986 created a Commission on Agricultural Workers--an 11 member bi-
partisan panel comprised of growers, union representatives, academics, 
civil servants, and clergy--and tasked it with examining the impact the 
amnesty for Special Agricultural Workers had on the domestic farm labor 
supply, working conditions, and wages.
  Six years after the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, 
the Commission found that the same problems in the agricultural 
industry persist: the living and working conditions of farm workers had 
not improved; wages remained stagnant; increasing numbers of new 
illegal aliens are arriving to compete for the same small number of 
jobs, thus reducing the work hours available to each worker and 
contributing to lower annual earnings; and virtually all workers who 
hold seasonal agricultural jobs are unemployed at some point during the 
year.
  I think the experience of the SAW program should serve as a lesson to 
the Senate as we grapple with how to handle our current illegal 
population. I believe the amnesty approach endorsed by the Judiciary 
Committee is far too similar to the SAW Program in 1986 and will likely 
have the same result. That is why I have introduced an amendment that 
will take away the amnesty from the agricultural portion of the 
Judiciary Committee bill.
  My amendment will allow illegal aliens to get blue cards in the same 
way that the Judiciary Committee prescribed. However, it requires that 
at the end of a 2-year period, those blue card workers must return to 
their home countries and enter the U.S. in a legal manner.
  This 2-year period provides sufficient time for agricultural 
employers to organize their workforce so that they can send workers 
home in an orderly manner and not have a complete work stoppage. These 
workers can then enter the U.S. on a legal temporary worker program 
just like anybody else in the world.
  They can stay here for a specified period of time and then when that 
time is up they will have to return to their homeland.
  We know from past experience that agricultural workers do not stay in 
their agricultural jobs for long, especially when they gain a legal 
status and have the option to work in less back-breaking occupations. 
Therefore, the focus on agricultural immigration should be on the H-2A 
program. This is the program that regardless of what the Senate does 
with amnesty, will be relied upon by our agricultural employers across 
the country in the near future.
  My amendment provides for a reasonable and responsible transition to 
the H-2A program, and I believe is an approach that will not repeat the 
mistakes of the past and is more in line with the way the vast majority 
of Americans believe we should deal with our large illegal population.
  I send my amendment to the desk, and I will have more to say about 
that amendment in the future as we continue the debate on this bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is a time allocation. How much time 
remains under the time of Senator Leahy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 48 minutes 55 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have probably 15 pages of names of 
different

[[Page 4700]]

groups that support and now embrace the McCain-Kennedy legislation, now 
called our border security legislation. There are 430 different groups 
that have supported this legislation representing the faith community.
  This chart is entitled ``Evangelical Support Comprehensive 
Immigration Reform.''

       We support comprehensive immigration reform, based on the 
     biblical mandates, our Christian faith and values, and our 
     commitment to civil and human rights.

  These are 41 national, local, and individual evangelical leaders and 
groups. This is reflected also in other religious groups that have 
supported it, including a number of groups representing labor, business 
communities, men and women of faith who are supporting the 
comprehensive approach.
  I will review very quickly, once again, the kind of worker 
protections we have put in this legislation. One of the principal 
reasons the church leaders have been so supportive is because they have 
followed and witnessed this program for so many years.
  In the 1950s we had the Bracero Program which was a program that saw 
enormous human abuses of workers who were basically brought in here, 
doing sweat labor, without any rights at all, and then shipped back, 
for the most part, to Mexico. There was an extraordinary exploitation 
of individuals. That ended in the early 1960s. I was in the Senate when 
that program ended.
  We still have enormous tensions between the workers and the farmers, 
particularly in California and a number of other Western States. We 
also have seen it on the east coast as a number of migrant workers have 
come up from Florida, through Georgia, through the Carolinas, even 
ended up coming into New York State and my own State in the form of 
apple pickers and other fruit pickers. They have followed the seasons.
  But primarily this issue about agricultural workers has been focused, 
as has been spoken to eloquently by the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Feinstein. She has played an indispensable role, along with Senator 
Craig, who has been a longtime sponsor of what we call the AgJOBS bill. 
We have votes on that legislation. A bipartisan majority of the members 
supported that legislation. That particular legislation has been 
altered to a very small extent and incorporated in the broader 
legislation. It is one of the important reasons to commend this 
legislation.
  As I have mentioned in an earlier statement, we have a comprehensive 
approach toward our immigration challenge that we are facing in this 
country, but there is a very important AgJOBS issue. We had not 
addressed it in the McCain-Kennedy legislation because it appears to 
have a separate constituency, but we were able to get that incorporated 
through the leadership of Senator Feinstein. It strengthened our 
package.
  I mention, first of all, the protections that have been put in the 
agriculture comprehensive. Anyone who has followed the relationship 
between the farmers and the workers would understand it has been an 
extraordinarily strained relationship, to say the least. Caesar Chavez 
was the great leader of the farm workers. I had the opportunity to 
know, respect, and hold him in high regard. He was the leader for the 
farm workers for a great number of years. He is regarded almost as a 
saint among the farm workers.
  There was enormous tension during a prolonged period of time, and in 
recent years there has been an accommodation between the two groups. 
Both of the groups--the farmers and agricultural workers--got together 
and made a proposal. This obviously has enormous implications. From my 
point of view, it has enormous implications because of what it will do. 
It will mean that men and women who work in that extraordinarily 
challenging and difficult agricultural area, which is back-breaking 
work, will be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. And, 
second, it provides assurance to the farmers of a definite labor 
supply. Third, it gives the assurance that States such as California, 
the leading agricultural State, is going to have dependability and 
reliability in terms of the work force. That is going to mean better 
service to the consumers of agricultural products all across this 
country.
  It is enormously valuable and very worthwhile and one of the 
compelling reasons for this legislation. Included in this legislation 
are very important protections that are not in there under the current 
H-2A program. Some people have talked about what is happening in 
agribusiness today in the H-2A program, and too much of that is true, 
but that will be altered and changed under the agricultural worker 
compromise.
  There are specific provisions; again, in order to be eligible for 
this program individuals are going to have to demonstrate, they must 
already have a work record of more than 2 years. They will be able to 
work over a period of 3 years in the business after that period of 
time, 3 to 5 years, and after that, they can get on a glidepath toward 
citizenship. So total time for them would be a total of 10 to 12 years 
in order to earn the opportunity to be a citizen. That means they will 
have to pay the penalties, they will have to demonstrate they paid 
their taxes, that they have had no trouble with the law, and they have 
complied with the other provisions of the legislation. So there are 
very important protections.
  If there were no other reasons for the support for this legislation, 
that particular provision, the AgJOBS legislation, is overwhelming in 
its importance and consequence in advancing the cause of justice for 
agricultural workers and also the assurance to farmers of a dependable 
and reliable workforce.
  It has been stated a number of times by some Members perhaps who are 
not as familiar with the legislation as they might be, about the kind 
of protections that exist in the underlying legislation with regard to 
the guest worker program and how it would work. First of all, there has 
to be an advertisement in the United States to try and recruit American 
workers first. There has to be a certification of the effort under 
penalty of violating the law. They have to advertise to recruit 
American workers first. It is only after they have been unable to 
recruit American workers that they will be able to recruit workers, 
primarily in Mexico, but there is an allocation of workers, depending 
on the workforce in terms of other countries, and in limited numbers 
for other countries in Central America. There are even provisions in 
terms of the Asian nations. Those will be worked out through the 
embassies and through the department.
  When this individual comes to the United States as a guest worker, 
they will have a tamper-proof identification card. The employer will 
know that individual has had his criminal record reviewed, that the 
person is found to be the individual as portrayed, and where there is 
employment that will be available to that individual in the United 
States. There are provisions included in the legislation that they are 
going to be covered by the prevailing wage, they will be covered by the 
Davis-Bacon provisions, they will be protected if they are going to 
work as what they call ``service contract'' employees, and their wages 
will be protected in those areas, as well.
  Instead of having what we have at the present time--an undocumented 
alien worker recruited by an employer who can say: Look, you will work 
for me for $1, and if you do not like it I will turn you over to the 
immigration authority--this individual will be able to have the card 
and existing protections for wages which will have the corresponding 
effect. It will mean that all the wages are going to at least be 
enhanced because we will no longer have the downward drive in wages 
with the undocumented. And if that individual is feeling exploited in 
some way or being denied that or lied to, that individual will be able 
to take that same card and go to another job. That individual has to 
find that job within a period of time, some 45 days. In other words, we 
have drafted this legislation to take into account the exploitation 
which has existed in the past.
  Under this particular provision, we will be avoiding that kind of 
exploitation. Under this provision we will be guaranteeing the 
protection of wages for that worker and permitting those

[[Page 4701]]

who are undocumented to be able to acquire a card, as well.
  Regarding the enforcement against employers who are interested in 
exploiting those workers, we have the mechanism to make sure those 
individuals are held accountable and prosecuted, which has never been 
done previously. It is important.
  Our leader is here, and I will withhold my comments. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notifies the Senator from 
Massachusetts the time is expired.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary status of the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 5:30 is equally divided. Your 
side has 36 minutes 19 seconds and the other side has 70 minutes 47 
seconds.
  At 4 o'clock the Senator from Maryland will be recognized to offer 
her amendment.
  Mr. REID. Last summer, the Governors of Arizona and New Mexico 
declared states of emergency at their southern borders. I don't think 
anyone in this Chamber would disagree there is a crisis on our borders. 
There are, as indicated by the Governors of the two States of Arizona 
and New Mexico, an emergency.
  We would all agree we should do something about this. We all agree we 
need to gain control of the chaos and restore order.
  As do many Members of the Senate, I believe the approach endorsed by 
a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee represents the best 
way to address our border crisis. It combines tough, effective 
enforcement with smart reforms to the immigration laws. It strengthens 
our borders, cracks down on employers who hire illegally, and brings 
undocumented immigrants out of the shadows of America.
  It also requires these same people who are now living in the shadows 
to learn English, to have jobs, pay taxes, make sure they are not in 
trouble with the law. And even if they do that, they still go to the 
back of the line.
  I strongly believe in tough and effective enforcement of our 
immigration laws. I also believe you cannot enforce laws that are 
unenforceable. Our current laws are unenforceable. I was at the borders 
just a few days ago, the California-Mexico border. It was very close to 
the Arizona border. There is chaos.
  When I came into the port at San Ysidro, I had a tour of the 
facility, and just from a few hours' work the Border Patrol agents 
showed me what they had found that day. There was a little compact car. 
Somebody had scooped out the back of the car and built a canvas 
apparatus there. It was a small area, much smaller than the trunk of a 
car. It was very small. It was as though they had built a canvas 
basket, and five people had piled on top of one another and were hidden 
under that.
  Another thing they showed us that happened just that day, within a 
matter of hours: in a truck, which was ostensibly a contracting truck--
in fact, it was not--they had had a storage compartment hidden under 
cement bags with people in it.
  The narcotics they find are, of course, another situation. We are 
talking about cargo being human beings. They showed me, as I have said, 
in a matter of hours, how difficult it is to stop people from coming. A 
million people come over that border every day. It is hard to 
comprehend. There are 24 lanes of traffic coming one way from Mexico 
into the United States--24 lanes of traffic.
  The easy thing for all of us to say is: Get tougher, throw more money 
and more Border Patrol agents at the problem, and it will get better. 
That is not the answer. It seems appealing, but it is simply not true.
  As I said, I support the strong enforcement measures included in the 
bipartisan Judiciary Committee bill, which are, by the way, close to 
identical to those included in the border security bill offered by the 
majority leader. I strongly believe we need to have additional Border 
Patrol agents. We have to modernize our computer system. We have to do 
many other things, most of which are included in this bill, to secure 
our border and enforce our immigration laws with respect to employers.
  But I also believe that enforcement alone will not fix our broken 
immigration system. To those who say we should secure our borders first 
and then consider ways to reform our immigration laws, I say the only 
way to secure our borders is to reform our immigration laws. If we want 
to create laws that are enforceable, first we have to make them 
realistic.
  There is widespread support for the approach the Judiciary Committee 
has established, including the support of most labor unions, the vast 
majority of businesses, religious groups, and immigrant community 
leaders.
  Months ago, I held an event at the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce 
building. I was stunned by the people appearing at that forum I held, 
but it did illustrate the broad support comprehensive immigration 
reform has from different sectors of the Las Vegas community. I think 
this is the same all over the country.
  In addition to representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, there were 
people there from the Nevada Restaurant Association, the Culinary 
Union, which is a union of some 60,000 people in Las Vegas which prides 
itself in giving people who do the dirty work--people who park the 
cars, who do the janitorial work, make the beds--they pride themselves 
in these being good jobs, high-paying jobs. They have 60,000 union 
members.
  In addition to that, we had representatives from hotels, including 
the MGM/Mirage Corporation, which, by the way, has the largest hotel in 
the world, the MGM Hotel, with 5,005 rooms in that one facility alone. 
We also had the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas. They were 
all there standing with me to confirm their support for realistic 
immigration reforms, the kinds we are now discussing in the Senate.
  D. Taylor, the leader of the Culinary Union, the one I just spoke 
about, local 226, said at the time it had to be an important issue to 
get representatives of the Culinary Union and the Chamber of Commerce 
in the same room talking about the same subject.
  Less than 2 weeks ago, I attended a similar event held at the 
Mandalay Bay Hotel/Convention Center in Las Vegas, where leaders of the 
Culinary Union and MGM/Mirage representatives stood together again with 
dozens of immigrants who are hotel workers to highlight the importance 
of immigrants to the Las Vegas economy. The representative of the 
Chamber of Commerce was an immigrant.
  In the State of Nevada, the Culinary Union has been a strong 
supporter of the reforms we have in this legislation before the Senate. 
The Culinary Union, like all other unions in this country, understands 
that when there are people working illegally in our economy, it 
undercuts the wages and working conditions of everyone else.
  The Las Vegas business community has been supportive of our efforts 
here in Washington to reform our immigration laws. That is an 
understatement. They depend on the hard work of immigrants in our 
community to get the work done. In Las Vegas, we have a very low 
unemployment level. It is estimated that Las Vegas will add almost 
50,000 new hotel rooms, requiring 100,000 new workers.
  Mr. President, the Culinary Union, like other unions in this country, 
as I said, understands the importance of people working legally. If we 
have illegal workers in our economy, it undercuts the wages of everyone 
else.
  As I indicated, in Las Vegas, where we have very low unemployment, we 
expect to add in the next 5 or 6 years another approximately 50,000 new 
hotel rooms, requiring 100,000 new workers there alone. Nevada's 
restaurant industry is expecting an almost 4-percent gain in jobs this 
year alone.
  I know that businesses I have been working with on this issue comply 
with their duties under the law and do everything they can to ensure 
that the workers they hire are legal. But they acknowledge we need 
legal immigrants to keep the economy expanding. I have worked closely 
with many of the resorts in Las Vegas, the Nevada Hotel

[[Page 4702]]

and Lodging Association, the Nevada Restaurant Association, and others, 
and they will all tell you that reform of our laws is essential to our 
expanding economy.
  Immigrants help create more jobs for American workers. They help 
expand our economy and provide labor for new businesses that will also 
employ Americans. Immigrant consumers spend money that keeps American 
businesses going. Immigrants employed at companies that also employ 
Americans help to make sure that American jobs stay in America more 
than being outsourced to other countries where there is cheaper labor.
  It was probably 15, 18 years ago that a book was written by a 
journalist whom I have the greatest respect for. He has been the editor 
of US News & World Report. He has had many high-level jobs in the 
journalism field. But he wrote a book called ``More Like Us.'' This was 
at the height of the Japanese economy, some saying taking over the 
world. People were saying then in America, we have to be more like the 
Japanese if we are going to succeed economically. James Fallows is the 
man about whom I just spoke who wrote this book. And he said, no, that 
is not true. We need to be more like us. We need to continue doing what 
America does best. One of the things America does that is far better 
than Japan and most any other country is we are a nation of immigrants. 
These immigrants, James Fallows has pointed out in this book, come to 
this Nation in limited numbers, and when they come here, they are 
striving to achieve.
  We saw, all of us who are Members of the Senate, with the people 
coming here from Southeast Asia, from Vietnam, and other nations that 
were torn by war--the so-called boat people--we saw the kids graduating 
from high school who were the valedictorians, the salutatorians, the 
people who were doing so well in high school, and then were going into 
college with these grades that were better than anyone else. These were 
the kids from Southeast Asia who were here to prove to their parents 
and their family that they could succeed in America.
  They even considered at UCLA, one time--I read this in an article in 
a weekly magazine--limiting the number of Asian students who could go 
to UCLA because people get in that school simply on the merits and 
Asians were, some thought at the time, getting more than their fair 
share of spots. It is because immigrants do well. And James Fallows 
pointed that out. We see it today more than at any other time.
  For example, UNLV's Center for Business and Economic Research 
published a report in 2003, concluding that non-native Hispanic 
immigrants helped drive the Las Vegas economy, generating $15.5 billion 
in spending, contributing $829 million in State and local taxes and 
helping to create more than 200,000 jobs.
  Finally, I want to talk about the support of the religious community 
for the reforms in this legislation we are discussing today. As I 
mentioned, one of the people who joined me last fall to emphasize his 
support for comprehensive immigration reform was the bishop of the 
Diocese of Las Vegas, Bishop Pepe. He and others in the religious 
community are supporting this effort because they know that reforming 
our immigration laws is the right thing to do. It is the American thing 
to do. It is the moral thing to do.
  We have U.S. citizens and permanent residents who are separated from 
their family members for years, sometimes decades, because of long 
processing backlogs and legal limits on family immigration. That is why 
one of the things we need to do in this legislation--and we are doing 
it--is to make sure Immigration and Naturalization and the Border 
Patrol have the resources they need so people do not have to wait in 
line. Even after becoming qualified to become a citizen, in Las Vegas 
you have to wait for years, sometimes up to 5 or 6 years, for the 
papers to be processed because they are so understaffed.
  We have 11 million people living in the shadows of our society. Many 
of these immigrants have been here for years, have children and spouses 
who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. They pay taxes. They own 
property and are active, valuable members of our community. Virtually 
all of them came here to work. Our immigration laws, in many instances, 
force them to go into hiding. They live in fear every day that they 
will be deported and separated from their families and communities, 
separated from their children who are American citizens.
  For those people who are already here, I believe we have to provide 
an opportunity for those who work hard, pay taxes, play by the rules, 
commit no crimes, learn English, and contribute to our economic growth, 
to earn the right to stay here--to earn the right to stay here.
  We should encourage people to work here, and under the legislation 
that is pending before this body, there is a time when they have to go 
back to the country from which they came. Many people want to do this, 
and used to do this before we made it so dangerous for them to go back 
and forth across the border.
  But for people who decide they want to stay here, they should not be 
allowed to jump to the front of the line but should be allowed to earn 
their legal status here, I repeat, if they pay fines and penalties, 
work steadily for years, learn English, and pass the necessary 
background checks.
  As Americans, I do not think we want to forcibly uproot so many 
people who have put down their roots in communities for the same reason 
our parents and grandparents came: to make better lives for themselves 
and their families. We need to continue, as James Fallows said, to be 
``more like us,'' what has made America great.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3217 To Amendment No. 3192

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3217 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] for herself and 
     Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 3217.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To extend the termination date for the exemption of returning 
     workers from the numerical limitations for temporary workers)

       On page 174, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 2__. EXTENSION OF RETURNING WORKER EXEMPTION.

       Section 402(b)(1) of the Save Our Small and Seasonal 
     Businesses Act of 2005 (title IV of division B of Public Law 
     109-13; 8 U.S.C. 1184 note) is amended by striking ``2006'' 
     and inserting ``2009''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I do rise, along with my very 
distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator John Warner--we are 
bipartisan cosponsors--to offer an amendment that is much needed by 
small and seasonal businesses across the Nation.
  Our amendment is needed.
  We believe that it is supported by the Judiciary Committee. But most 
of all, the American people will agree that this amendment is much 
needed.
  This is a bipartisan amendment. What does it do? First, it protects 
our borders by rewarding immigrants and employers who play by the 
rules, workers who come here on a seasonal basis but return to their 
families when they are finished with their job and go back home. These 
workers honor their legal

[[Page 4703]]

commitment to come to work under legally supervised jobs and then they 
return home. No. 2, it does protect American workers by requiring that 
all employers recruit American workers before they hire these 
immigrants, and it makes sure that small business will be able to pay 
their U.S. workers 12 months out of the year. No. 3, it protects 
American jobs by keeping small and seasonal business open for business. 
It guarantees the labor supply that small businesses need during peak 
seasons is available, when they can't find Americans to take their 
jobs.
  So No. 1, it protects our borders by allowing only those in this 
country who intend to go back home. It supports legal immigration. It 
is consistent with supporting a legal framework; it only allows workers 
to come into this country if they have played by the rules. And you can 
only come in if you can prove you are going to work for a good-guy 
American employer who has tried to recruit American workers. Also it 
does not raise the cap on seasonal workers. My amendment would allow 
employers to hire the workers who have played by the rules and returned 
home after the work is done, it allows these workers to be hired for 
another 3 years and not count against the annual cap of 66,000. It does 
not raise the annual cap of 66,000.
  My amendment provides a helping hand to business by letting them 
apply for workers they have already trained and know will come back 
again year after year but return home year after year. It only applies 
to those who have already successfully participated in the H-2B visa 
program. They have received a visa and returned home to their families 
after their employment with a U.S. company.
  This is not a new H-2B. It is essentially a 3-year exemption to allow 
those who have come back in and returned home to come back again, most 
often to the same employer like employers in my State of Maryland who 
work in the seafood industry. The H-2B program has kept small and 
seasonal business doors open when they face seasonal worker shortages 
that many coastal and resort States have been dealing with over years.
  Small businesses across this country count on the H-2B program to 
keep their business afloat. When they cannot find local American 
workers to fill their seasonal needs, they then turn to the H-2B. 
Without being able to get the seasonal workers they need, these 
businesses would often go under. These businesses do try to hire 
American workers. Under the law, they must try to hire American 
workers. They would love to hire American workers. They have to 
demonstrate that they vigorously tried to recruit Americans. They have 
to advertise, give American workers a chance to apply. Their businesses 
have to prove to the Department of Labor that there are no Americans 
available for this work. Only then are they allowed to fill their 
vacancies with seasonal workers.
  The workers these businesses bring in participate in the H-2B year 
after year, often working at the same companies--that has been the 
experience of the Maryland seafood industry about which I will talk 
later. Yet they cannot and do not stay in the United States. They 
return to their home countries and to their families. Then what 
happens? The U.S. employer must go through the whole process again the 
next year to get them back. It means an employer again has to prove 
they can't get U.S. workers and that they are willing to pay the 
prevailing wage for that industry.
  Yet, this is not just a Maryland issue. It is not even a coastal 
issue, though we coastal Senators are hit pretty big time. But it is an 
issue that affects everyone--ski resorts out West and in the Northeast, 
quarries in Colorado, shrimpers in Texas and Louisiana, landscapers 
whose businesses are the busiest in spring and summer. Why is it 
important to Maryland? Being able to hire seasonal workers for our crab 
industry has been a way of life down on the eastern shore for more than 
100 years. We have a lot of summer seasonal businesses in Maryland, on 
the eastern shore, in Ocean City and working on the Chesapeake Bay. 
Many of our businesses use the program year after year. First they hire 
all of the American workers they can, but they need additional help to 
meet seasonal demands. Without this help, they would be forced to limit 
services, lay off permanent U.S. workers or even worse close their 
doors.
  Let me give a couple of examples. One is a business called J.M. 
Clayton. What they do is a way of life. It was started over 100 years 
ago. It is now run by the great-grandson of the founder J.M. Clayton. 
They work the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. They supply crabs, 
crabmeat, and other seafood to restaurants and markets and wholesalers 
all over this country. It is the oldest working crab processing plant 
in the world. By employing 65 H-2B workers, they can retain 30 full-
time American workers all year long.
  It is not just the seafood companies that have a long history. It is 
also the S.E.W. Friel cannery which began its business over 100 years 
ago. It is the last corn cannery left out of 300 on the shore. Ten 
years ago they couldn't find local workers. They turned to the H-2B. 
Since then, many workers come each season and then go home year after 
year. They have helped this country maintain its American workforce and 
paved the way for local workers to return to the cannery. There are now 
190 seasonal workers, but there are 75 people working in the cannery 
full time, and an additional 70 farmers and additional suppliers.
  This summer I went over to the shore, after we had a successful 
victory last year giving this legislation a temporary exemption, to 
meet with the Latino women. When I met with these women, I asked them: 
Why do you come and what does this program mean to you? They told me 
that by coming year after year--they know it is hard work--they can 
provide for their families. They know that when they come in April, 
they will be here until late September when our crab pots are put away 
and we pack up for another year. During the summer, they can earn 
money. They earn more money in one summer here than they can earn in 5 
years in Mexico. And the money they take back year after year has 
enabled them to build a home, often dig wells in their own native 
village, even pool some of their money to build a community center. 
They come often as a family and often as a village to say: Are we going 
to the shore? We know Clayton. We know Phillips. They know where they 
are going to live. There are buses that take them to church every 
Sunday. They know where they are going to shop. They have access to 
translators. And in some places, they are actually being trained by the 
seafood industry to learn English so they can move up to some other 
positions.
  Then they take this money, anywhere from 15, 20, $30,000--mostly 20--
and they go back to primarily Mexico. They go back where their husbands 
and children have been waiting. It is what often keeps the family 
going. What they earn will pay to build that school, build those homes, 
clean up that village and is putting the men to work so the men have 
jobs, the men have dignity. They are not crossing the border illegally. 
They are building a life in their village. They want to be Mexican 
citizens, but they know they are here to help. First it is one sister 
and then the following sister who come to the Eastern Shore for a few 
months a year to make money so they can take care of their families and 
communities back home.
  This is why this program works. The people who come are part of a 
family, part of a community in Mexico. They want to build a life in 
Mexico, but they can do it by helping us here.
  Some might ask: Why do we need this extension? The chairman has 
included a temporary guest worker program in his bill. We need to make 
sure we do not forget the needs of small and seasonal businesses in 
this immigrant debate. I welcome the guest worker program that is 
before the Senate. Once the program is up and running, it will help the 
H-2B program. But right now we need to make sure there is no 
interruption so that companies can meet their hiring needs when 
American workers don't apply for these jobs, when the cap has already 
been reached. The first half of the cap of 33,000 was

[[Page 4704]]

reached less than 3 months after employers could begin applying.
  What we want to do, again, is protect our borders, look out for 
American jobs. And for those who want to come to this country and 
return home, follow the rules and follow the law, this amendment will 
provide the opportunity to do so. My amendment does all of this. Each 
Member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents will know 
what I am talking about. This will extend the H-2B waiver for 3 years.
  It is a sound amendment. This is why it is strongly bipartisan. I 
urge at the appropriate time that the Senate adopt it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to start my participation here by 
congratulating my distinguished colleague from Maryland and her senior 
Senator, Mr. Sarbanes. It has been a great pleasure to work with both 
of them on this program through the years. I wonder if I might ask the 
principal sponsor of this amendment, Senator Mikulski, a question.
  In this turbulent era of immigration and the search for solutions, 
this program could be described as a model program, one that has worked 
as it was intended, one that serves the small business community as it 
was intended, and welcomes within our borders these individuals, as my 
colleague says, largely from south of the border, Mexico, in a way that 
doesn't conjure up any fear or suspicion or any resentment in the 
communities when they come to do their work.
  Would my colleague concur in my observation that this is a model 
program?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. My good friend and cosponsor from Virginia is 
absolutely right. This is a model program. It does not stir up 
resentment because of three reasons. No. 1, it does protect our 
borders. No. 2, the local communities are enthusiastic about it because 
it has kept businesses open on our mutual eastern shore, the Chesapeake 
Bay, that have been running for over 100 years. The ladies go back home 
and then return again under appropriate legal authority.
  It is a model program. If all immigration policy worked this well, we 
wouldn't be in such turbulent times.
  Mr. WARNER. A further point of colloquy: Last time you and I joined 
with Senator Sarbanes and others, Senator Allen on my side of the 
aisle, and just in the nick of time, we were able to get through that 
extension. It received a modest amount of publicity
  I read the articles and trade interests. But I cannot recall anyone 
contacting my office who was out right opposed to the program. Does the 
Senator know of anyone who has stood up and said it has taken away work 
and any of that sort of confusion and criticism we are experiencing 
today in the larger measures of the immigration problems?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, when 
I was contacted, people didn't understand the program. When I clarified 
for them that this was not an amnesty program, that this was a guest 
worker program--and guest was the way they were treated; and like a 
guest, they went home when they were supposed to--and that it actually 
kept American jobs in this country, particularly the doors of business 
open, like the J.M. Clayton Company, they were relieved to hear about 
it. They were glad we had a Government program on immigration that 
actually worked. They saluted the ladies for their hard work and said: 
We are glad they obeyed the law, and all turbulence was settled.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am delighted that my colleague had 
experiences similar to mine.
  I bring up one single aspect. I happen to be one who really enjoys 
crabmeat. I know that when so many of our crab houses came to us, they 
explained that if we lose what little market we have today, we are 
gone, because Venezuela has entered the market--I even saw crabmeat in 
the market this week, and I have been constantly studying it ever since 
I have been involved in this issue. But all of the crabmeat is coming 
from way beyond our shores. That is understandable now because the bay, 
which is the principal source of our crabmeat, is not quite ready for 
the harvesting. I would hate to see the famous blue crab disappear from 
our tables. It was about to disappear had we not gotten this program 
through last time; am I not correct on that?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is right. We have to fight for our market 
share because the competition is abroad and, quite frankly, they don't 
meet the quality standard. This program is not only for the crabs, but 
just think, for the people who are actually picking the crabs, they are 
putting people to work--the canning company, marketing, sales, the 
trucking industry, watermen, the people who run the marinas. This 
covers so many jobs on the Eastern Shore. This handful of seasonal 
workers helps leverage hundreds and hundreds of jobs on our shore.
  We could talk to Senator Stevens of Alaska. They have a business that 
harvests salmon roe, and their principal market is to the Japanese. The 
Japanese have to come in to inspect that roe to see if it can be 
exported. Nineteen Japanese come in every year under this program and 
then return home, primarily as inspectors. Because those 19 come, 
Alaska has a booming industry in exporting salmon roe. That is how this 
program works. Just a handful of guest workers leverages all this.
  Mr. President, I support Amendment No. 3217, the Save Our Small and 
Seasonal Businesses Act of 2006, which would ensure that certain 
employers would continue to legally obtain the seasonal workers they 
desperately need. I am pleased to work with Senator Mikulski as a 
cosponsor on the amendment, and I am joined by Senator Allen.
  Late in 2005, the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 94 to 6, to include 
our Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005 as an amendment 
to the defense supplemental bill. This legislation, which was 
eventually signed into law by President Bush, helped to temporarily 
solve a serious problem facing small businesses, especially seafood 
operations in Virginia, as well as others across the Nation.
  For each of the 2 years prior to our measure being signed into law, 
the statutory cap on H-2B visas was reached soon after the fiscal years 
began. In 2004, the cap was reached on March 20, and in 2005 the cap 
was reached on January 3.
  As a result, many businesses, mostly summer employers, were unable to 
obtain the temporary workers they needed because the cap was filled 
prior to the day they could even apply for the visas. Consequently, 
these businesses sustained significant economic losses.
  The fix that Congress provided in 2005 exempted from the 66,000 
statutory cap workers who had worked under the H-2B visa program in 
prior years and who had adhered to the rules by returning to their home 
country when their visas expired. However, this legislation was only 
for 2 years.
  As a result, on October 1, 2006, when the law expires, these 
employers and workers will face the same problem unless we adopt the 
amendment before us today.
  In order to avoid this problem, our amendment simply extends the 
successful H-2B visa exemption to ensure the program will not revert to 
its troubled, original form while work continues on a permanent 
solution. This will allow our small and seasonal companies an 
opportunity to remain open for business until a new permanent fix 
within comprehensive immigration reform can be passed into law and 
fully implemented. Without these modifications, these employers will 
struggle to find the necessary employees to keep their businesses 
running.
  Before I close, I want to be clear about the purpose of this 
amendment. There has been much said about Senator Specter's amendment 
and what it will or will not do. Regardless, his amendment will create 
a new H-2C temporary worker visa. In the long run, this new work visa 
will help ease the pressure on the H-2B visa program that exists today.
  However, it is now April, and the current H-2B exemption expires in 
October, only a few months from now. Even

[[Page 4705]]

if Congress were to pass an immigration bill and have it signed into 
law before then, it will take many, many months if not years before any 
new visa programs can be ready to accept applications. This is an 
uncertainty that small businesses cannot afford.
  Many employers across America, such as seafood processors, land-
scapers, resorts, pool companies, carnivals, and timber companies, rely 
upon the H-2B program. The seafood industry in Virginia, in particular, 
is dependent on this program to keep their business running. This 
industry has been built on decades of earned respect for their 
incomparable products. They represent traditions that have been in 
place for hundreds of years. These traditions have proven more 
successful than attempts to modernize or automate the process. Without 
access to the H-2B visa program, this traditional respect across the 
world will be lost, never to be regained.
  The current system in place since 2005 has allowed these small and 
seasonal businesses opportunity to hire a legal workforce to supplement 
and maintain the full-time domestic workers they already employ. If we 
want these employers to stay in business, the current H-2B exemption 
must be extended until a permanent solution or a new visa program can 
be implemented. I strongly support this amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues in the Senate will join 5 with me to help these small and 
seasonal businesses by passing this legislation as quickly as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Sarbanes, an original 
cosponsor of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\1/2\ minutes remaining on the 
minority side.
  The senior Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Mikulski, and I commend her 
once again for undertaking this initiative. In fact, as indicated in 
the colloquy with Senator Warner, this amendment is met with general 
approbation, and I believe it is a tribute to my colleague that she 
worked out a very skillful legislative solution to a difficult problem.
  This is a very measured and sensible solution to a real problem 
confronting small businesses struggling to find enough employees to 
operate during seasonal spikes in their workload. Many small businesses 
in Maryland and, indeed, around the country have seasonal increases in 
work. They often need a large number of workers for a portion of the 
year but do not retain these workers throughout the year. Therefore, 
temporary workers become essential to the vitality of these businesses.
  In Maryland, the seasonal issue affects numerous industries, 
including, first and foremost, the seafood industry but also the 
hospitality, pool and construction industries. Seafood processors, for 
example, are busy in the summer and early fall but have little or no 
work in the winter. All of these businesses start out by trying to hire 
college students and local residents as extra workers to cover this 
need, but they often find themselves shortstaffed. That has been the 
standard experience, and this program is designed to address that--the 
temporary employees come from abroad to work for a few months and then 
return home.
  As an essential part of this program, the H-2B program, this 
amendment my colleague offers today would simply extend for 3 years one 
of the very successful modifications to the H-2B program that was 
adopted by the Senate by a vote of 94 to 6 a year ago this month. Those 
modifications left the H-2B framework intact. They provided a fair and 
equitable means of distributing a scarce number of visas.
  It is important--and I wish to underscore this to my colleagues--to 
note that employers must demonstrate that they have tried and failed to 
find available, qualified U.S. citizens to fill seasonal jobs before 
they can file an H-2B application.
  The amendment approved last year, which is carried forward by this 
extension, had three important aspects:
  First, it ensured that summer employers were not disadvantaged by 
allowing no more than 33,000--or no more than half--of the 66,000 H-
2B--visas to be allocated in the first half of the year.
  Second, temporary workers who have lawfully participated in the H-2B 
program in the previous 3 years were exempted from the annual numerical 
cap.
  Third, the modification required the employer to pay a fraud 
prevention and detection fee and increased sanctions for fraud.
  Senator Mikulski is seeking to carry these provisions forward. These 
visas are really for people who respect our laws and who work hard to 
provide services that benefit our economy and then return home to their 
families at the end of the season. All of that is an essential part of 
the program.
  This extension is a necessary adjustment for small and seasonal 
businesses that rely on temporary workers. We must recognize that the 
success of one small business impacts another. It has a ripple effect 
through the economy and helps to maintain the vitality not only of our 
State's economy but of the Nation's economy.
  Mr. President, as we debate the larger issues involved in immigration 
reform, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I again commend 
my colleague, Senator Mikulski, for coming forward with this amendment 
to address an important issue on which the Senate has already indicated 
its approval in past considerations. This is a very important amendment 
for our small businesses that require temporary seasonal workers. This 
is a very skillful legislative solution to a problem. I commend my 
colleague for bringing it forth, and I urge its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to take a minute or two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I note that Senator Alexander is here.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. How many minutes would the Senator like--2 or 3 
minutes?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, is the Senator from Tennessee going to 
speak on this issue?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Not on this but on another matter. If the Senator 
needs more than a minute, I am glad to yield some of our time to the 
Senator.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I wish 3 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Maryland 
is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to add as cosponsors Senators 
Warner, Gregg, Allen, Sarbanes, Sununu, Thomas, Stevens, Reed of Rhode 
Island, Levin, Snowe, Jeffords, Thune, Collins, Kennedy, and Leahy.
  Mr. President, I don't know if there will be any more who wish to 
speak on the minority side. Every now and then, we conform in a 
bipartisan amendment. I think the amendment speaks of its merits. It 
meets a need for our jobs in this country. It solves a problem in a 
practical way. It doesn't exacerbate any of the dark side of 
immigration. I hope at the appropriate time my colleagues will adopt 
this amendment.
  I congratulate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Specter, and the committee for the excellent bill they brought out. 
This in no way dilutes, diverts, or detours any aspect of their bill. 
Three cheers to the Senate for having an immigration bill that is in no 
way as punitive and tart and prickly as the House bill.
  I think the Senate will proceed in a rational way. We need to protect 
our borders, protect American jobs. I believe there are sensible 
solutions for doing it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will answer a 
question. We put in this bill--and Senator Mikulski offered a sense of 
this amendment last year and it won--to extend

[[Page 4706]]

for 1 year these provisions. I thought in the bill that came out of 
committee we were dealing with it when we added 400,000 per year--more 
than doubling the number who would come in to work--who could be 
covered, I think, by this category. My question is, has the Senator 
been able to ascertain whether this would be in addition to the 400,000 
who would be approved under the Judiciary Committee mark?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First of all, the answer is that this amendment will be 
the bridge until the Judiciary Committee legislation is actually up and 
running. The H-2B employers will use the H-2C visas you all created 
once the program is up and running. But it will not be up and running 
for October of this year, if, in fact, we get a bill. We don't know if 
we will get a bill. If we do get a bill--you know how sluggish that 
bureaucracy is in writing rules and regulations--this is a safety net.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In effect, it would not continue as an addition on top 
of the expanded immigration provisions in the committee mark?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Mikulski-Warner framework goes away when this bill 
is put into effect.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I believe Senator Kyl and Senator 
Cornyn are coming to the Chamber to talk. I believe they have just 
arrived. I defer to Senator Cornyn and to Senator Kyl. We will be 
voting tonight on an amendment about helping prospective citizens 
become Americans, those who are legally here. I would like to talk a 
few minutes about that before 5:30 p.m.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 60 minutes remaining on the majority 
side for debate prior to two votes under the previous order at 5:30 
p.m.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--as far as I am 
floor manager on this side and a cosponsor of this amendment--that I 
may proceed for 3 minutes with the additional time not taken from the 
majority side.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are happy to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont 3 of our minutes so he can make his 
remarks.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will do that, that will work.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. If it is all right with the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I certainly don't begrudge the Senator 
from Vermont the time. I just hope it won't cut into our time and that 
we will add time to both sides so it will be even, if I understood the 
request.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. We have all the time remaining between now and 5:30 
p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 59 minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friends from Tennessee and Texas 
for their courtesy.
  I commend the Senator from Maryland. I enthusiastically--
enthusiastically--cosponsor this amendment. It is going to bring relief 
to employers by easing the shortfall of seasonal workers. I know it is 
desperately needed in Vermont.
  Last May we passed, and the President signed into law, assistance for 
small and seasonal businesses by enacting a special exemption. The 
amendment passed last May, offered by Senator Mikulski, cosponsored by 
myself, Senator Jeffords, and others, created an exemption to the cap 
for seasonal workers.
  The Vermont ski, hotel, and conference industries rely on hiring 
foreign workers when they cannot find Americans to fill seasonal jobs. 
Over the past several years, the demand for these workers across the 
country has far exceeded the caps and has led to a severe shortage of 
workers which threatened the hospitality industry which is such an 
important part of Vermont's economy.
  Senator Mikulski's amendment will simply extend the sunset date and 
give businesses in Vermont, Maryland, and other States the resources 
they need to compete and succeed. We need this relief in Vermont. The 
broad range of bipartisan support for this amendment shows how badly it 
is needed.
  I thank the Senator for her persistent efforts. I thank my good 
friends on the other side of the aisle for the courtesy they showed a 
late arrival.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the majority has the remaining time 
until 5:30, at which time there will be two votes, one on Senator 
Bingaman's amendment and one on the Alexander amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be allowed 
the next 15 minutes, followed by Senator Kyl, after which I be allowed 
up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was on the floor last Friday describing 
what I believed to be a remarkable resemblance between the provisions 
that deal with the 12 million individuals who are currently in the 
United States in violation of our immigration laws and the amnesty that 
was granted in 1986 which was supposed to be the amnesty to end all 
amnesties. In other words, if we would just agree that the 3 million or 
so people who entered our country without legal authorization would be 
given amnesty, we would then have worksite verification and sanctions 
against employers who hired people in violation of the law, and this 
problem would go away.
  As I pointed out then, the amnesty that was granted in 1986--everyone 
now acknowledges it was an amnesty. And the second thing I think 
everyone will nearly universally acknowledge is that amnesty was a 
complete and total failure. I, for one--and I believe there are others 
in this body--want to make sure we don't make the same mistake twice, 
and when we ask the American people to have confidence in us, in what 
we are trying to do to solve a very real problem, they don't take the 
attitude ``fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' 
They don't want to believe, nor should they be asked to believe, that 
we are engaged in a sleight of hand or a trick.
  So I believe it is very important that our colleagues focus not only 
on the amnesty of 1986, but to compare it with the proposal in the 
committee product which bears remarkable resemblance.
  One of the areas where it does not resemble the 1986 amnesty is that 
the 1986 amnesty would bar felons and people who have committed at 
least three misdemeanors. As Senator Kyl and I pointed out by way of 
our amendment, we seek to add that requirement back in so that felons 
and people who committed at least three misdemeanors would not be given 
an amnesty under the committee proposal.
  But in this bill--this enormously complex and important bill--details 
matter. Another example is I reviewed the committee bill over the 
weekend, and I have some concern that the bill text does not reflect 
how the bill is actually being described by its proponents.
  For example, section 602 of the bill states that illegal aliens must 
comply with the employment requirements. Yet there are no specific 
requirements for them to meet. Future temporary workers must be 
continuously employed, but no such requirement exists for illegal 
aliens. The alien could potentially be employed for one day and still 
end up qualifying for a green card and then put on a path to 
citizenship.
  I urge my colleagues to look very carefully at this bill and to study 
it because here we found at least two examples of where the bill does 
not meet the description offered by its proponents; and, No. 2, that 
those who say that

[[Page 4707]]

what this bill does for those who are currently here in violation of 
our immigration laws is not an amnesty, we find that it bears 
remarkable resemblance to what everyone acknowledged to be an amnesty 
in 1986 and what everyone pretty much universally acknowledges was a 
complete and total failure.
  Illegal immigration has had a dramatic effect on many aspects of our 
society. It affects our schools, hospitals, and prisons. Dr. Donald 
Huddle, a Rice University economics professor, published a systematic 
analysis of those costs as of 1996 and concluded the estimated net cost 
to the American taxpayer was about $20 billion each year.
  The population in our country that has stayed here in violation of 
our immigration laws has doubled since that study was done. So the 
financial impact picked up not by the Federal Government but by local 
school districts and local hospital districts and State and other local 
governments may be as high as $40 billion to $50 billion.
  Last week, we heard a lot of debate about whether immigration reform 
needs to address the 12 million aliens already here who have come here 
or stayed here in violation of our laws and to create a new visa 
category that would allow future workers to enter our country legally.
  As I said then, and I will say again now, I support comprehensive 
immigration reform and I believe our national security requires us to 
know who is in our country and what their intentions are once here. But 
I fear that a critical distinction in the debate is being glossed over, 
and that is whether work visas should be truly temporary or whether we 
should allow all migrant workers to remain here permanently.
  First, let me say that there is obviously an important role for 
permanent immigrants, and I support legal immigration. I noted, as so 
many others have, that we are a nation of immigrants, and we are the 
better for it. I support, for example, moderate increases in legal 
permanent immigration, but I don't support a so-called temporary worker 
program which is neither temporary nor is it a worker program, but it 
is rather an alternative path to legal permanent residency and 
citizenship.
  More than 23 million immigrants have been issued green cards since 
1973, an average of about three-quarters of a million new green card 
holders each year. But there is also a role for temporary workers in 
addition to those people who want to immigrate here permanently. I feel 
strongly that we ought to distinguish between legal immigration, 
illegal immigration, and we ought to distinguish between people who 
want to come here temporarily and work but not give up their identity 
or their citizenship with their country of origin and those who want to 
be Americans.
  For those who are permanently going to be immigrating to the United 
States, I sincerely want all of them to become Americans, and I joined 
in cosponsoring the amendment with the Senator from Tennessee to help 
them do that, so they can be assimilated, they can learn English, they 
can gain access to the kind of education that will allow them to become 
not only legal immigrants, but to become permanently assimilated into 
our society and productive citizens. I think we owe that to them and we 
owe that to ourselves.
  But there is also a role for those who want to come here for a time 
and work and then return to their country of origin, people who have no 
intention of giving up their ties with their country or their culture 
or their family but who want to come and work for a time and then 
return with the savings and skills they acquired working in the United 
States.
  We have heard a lot of discussion about that from sectors in the 
economy saying they depend on the workers who come from other countries 
but that they could work with a temporary worker program to satisfy 
those needs.
  There are some who criticize saying that a true temporary worker 
program is futile and unworkable. They argue that temporary workers 
will never leave and so we must allow all of them to remain here 
permanently.
  I strongly reject what I would interpret as an open borders argument. 
First, I think it is ridiculous for anyone to argue that the United 
States neither has the ability nor the will to enforce its immigration 
laws. Should we not put any limit on how long a visitor can stay in the 
United States, how long a student can remain in the United States? That 
argument is a disservice to the hundreds of millions of tourists, 
executives, workers, and students who do comply with our immigration 
laws.
  The United States admits 500 million visitors a year, and only a 
fraction of a percentage makes the affirmative decision to violate our 
laws and to stay here.
  I also believe that effective worksite enforcement will allow workers 
to work during the term of their visa but then to return once their 
visa expires. The 1986 amnesty promised that illegal workers would not 
be able to find work, but here we are today with 5 percent of our 
workforce using false documents. I will, therefore, not support any 
reform proposal unless I am confident that illegal workers will not be 
able to find employment in the United States but for legal channels.
  If we actually believe we cannot enforce the law, if temporary 
doesn't mean temporary, if there is no distinction between legal and 
illegal, we are essentially raising a white flag and saying we will not 
enforce our own laws. I cannot imagine this great institution taking 
that position either affirmatively, expressly, or tacitly.
  I also reject the argument that a true temporary worker visa is 
inconsistent with the natural migration patterns of workers. The 
American Lawyers Association states that before 1986, the average 
length of stay in the United States was only 1.7 years. Since 1986, the 
amnesty that was created in that year, the length of stay has increased 
to 3.5 years, up from 1.7 The bottom line is most workers do not want 
to stay for 6 years, much less permanently.
  Douglas Massey, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, argues 
that the 1986 amnesty:

       Succeeded in transforming a seasonal flow of temporary 
     workers into a more permanent population of settled legal 
     immigrants.

  He wrote that, prior to 1986:

       Most immigrants sought to work abroad temporarily in order 
     to mitigate and manage risks and acquire capital for a 
     specific goal or purpose. By sending one family member abroad 
     for a limited period of foreign labor, households could 
     diversify their sources of income and accumulate savings from 
     the United States earnings. In both cases, the fundamental 
     objective was to return to their country of origin--in this 
     case, he says: ``Mexico.''

  He argues--and I agree--that the 1986 amnesty actually resulted in a 
decrease in circular migration.
  The committee amendment on the floor would do exactly the same thing. 
It would destroy the incentive for circular migration and the benefits 
that would accrue--not just to the United States but to the country of 
origin, to whence the immigrant would return with the savings and 
skills they have acquired here.
  In a survey by the Pew Hispanic Center of Mexicans Abroad, they 
support the argument that migrant workers would participate in a true 
temporary worker program. Indeed, 71 percent of those surveyed, which 
were 5,000 applicants for the matriculator consular card in the United 
States, 71 percent said they would participate in a temporary worker 
program, even if they knew that at the end of the period of their 
visas, they would have to return to their country of origin.
  Finally, our country is enjoying a strong period of economic growth. 
The economy created almost a quarter of a million jobs in February and 
has created 2.1 million jobs over the past 12 months--almost 5 million 
new jobs since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.8 percent, lower 
than the average of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. We may not 
always enjoy a strong economy, and a true temporary worker program 
allows our visa policy to adapt to the peaks and valleys of our 
economic needs.
  I supported Senator Kyl's amendment in the committee that would limit 
the number of temporary worker

[[Page 4708]]

visas if unemployment reaches certain levels. But that amendment means 
nothing if all workers are on green cards or on a path to legal 
permanent residency or citizenship.
  Everyone, it seems, describes their proposal as a guest worker or 
temporary worker program. But not all temporary worker programs--or at 
least those sold under the guise of a temporary worker program--are, in 
fact, temporary. It is important, both to our economy and to American 
native-born workers who compete with this new workforce, that we 
modulate and moderate the flow of workers into our country at a time 
when our economy can sustain them and not take jobs away from people 
who are born here or who are legal immigrants. It is also critical that 
we recognize the importance of the restoration of these circular 
migration patterns which, in fact, benefit countries such as Mexico and 
in Central America because they are literally being hollowed out: 
People permanently leaving those countries, making it difficult for 
them to generate jobs and grow their economy, so that people can stay 
home if they wish and not have to leave their family and their culture 
and their country in order to come to the United States to sustain 
themselves and their families.
  My point is our colleagues and those in the news media and the 
American people listening should listen carefully to not only what 
people call their different sort of worker programs or visas but 
actually how they function, and insist that if colleagues are going to 
call a guest worker program a temporary worker program, that it is, in 
fact, temporary; and that if it is a guest program, that it not be 
someone who is going to permanently move in with us. Guests, in fact, 
ultimately are supposed to return and not stay.
  I realize time is short for this portion of the debate, but I did 
want to make those points. I know there are other colleagues on the 
floor who wish to speak, and I will return and make additional comments 
on other aspects of this bill at a later time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona, who has the 
next 15 minutes, has generously agreed to allow the Senator from 
Alabama to have up to 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the 
agreement be modified so the Senator from Alabama has 3 minutes, 
Senator Kyl has 15 minutes, and then I have 15 minutes after Senator 
Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had a very fine hearing this morning. 
I think five Federal judges, and the Department of Justice represented, 
and a professor, to deal with a problem in our immigration system. 
Senator Cornyn has rightly said a bill is a bill is a bill, but what 
does it say? In Chairman Specter's mark, he dealt with a crisis in 
appeals in immigration. During the course of our committee markup, an 
amendment was offered that said that wasn't good and whatever, and we 
struck that reform. So the bill that would be the Judiciary markup bill 
on the floor does not have any action whatsoever to deal with this 
problem.
  Since 2001, we have had a 601-percent increase in appeals, Bureau of 
Appeals, immigration appeals cases. Six times they have increased since 
the year 2000. It now takes, on average, 27 months for one of those 
cases to be handled because of the backlog.
  Judge Bea of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who has one of the 
biggest backlogs in that circuit, said this this morning:

       Second, as petitioners and attorneys see appeals piling up 
     in the circuit courts, they realize their appeals will be 
     delayed. During the period of delay, events may change the 
     alien's chances of staying in the country. Those changes may 
     be personal, such as a marriage to a U.S. citizen or the 
     birth of a child, or any number of other conditions that 
     might affect their removability. Or those changes may be 
     political, such as change in country conditions in the 
     alien's home country, or legislative and administrative, such 
     as immigration reform in the country, giving the alien new 
     hopes to remain here. Even if the appeal lacks all merit, the 
     backlog of cases in the circuit court provides an incentive 
     to appeal by almost guaranteeing a delay in deportation, now 
     on an average of 27 months.

  What I would say to my colleagues is, If we are going to do 
something--and we should--we have to confront the problem of those who 
are here illegally and handle that in a humane and fair and decent way. 
But if the promise at the same time is we are going to fix the system 
that is broken today--Senator Harry Reid said he was down on the border 
and he said it was chaos and the laws are unenforceable. These are some 
of the examples of it. Senator Specter had language in to fix it. The 
language was stripped out. There is nothing in this bill before us that 
would deal with this problem. It is an example of some of the gaping 
holes that remain in this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Senator Cornyn and I have introduced 
legislation that is comprehensive in nature, and I wish to briefly 
describe some of the key provisions of that legislation because I 
believe we will have an opportunity to vote on it as an amendment to 
the pending bill at some point during our procedure.
  In significant part, the bill before us embodies many of the 
provisions of our legislation that deal with border security. I want to 
emphasize at the beginning that almost all of us agree the first step 
we have to take in dealing with comprehensive immigration reform is 
securing the border. It is going to take time to get that done. It is 
going to take money and it is going to take will. The provisions of our 
bill provide a significant sum of money for more Border Patrol agents, 
more fencing--it is not a wall, but it does provide some additional 
fencing--and it provides for high technology to help with the border 
security, including unmanned aerial vehicles, sensors, cameras, and 
things of that sort.
  It also requires that the Department of Homeland Security acquire 
more detention spaces so that people who come here from countries other 
than Mexico and, therefore, can't just be returned to the border, will 
actually be detained pending their removal to their own country. Today, 
if you are an illegal immigrant from China, for example, we can't take 
you down to the border with Mexico and drop you off there; we have to 
send you back to China. This costs a lot of money. It takes a long 
time. In fact, the Chinese Government is very slow to take Chinese 
citizens back. There are now some 39,000 Chinese citizens whom we 
apprehended who came here illegally, but who have not been returned to 
China. We don't have the detention space for all of them, so they are 
released on their own recognizance. Do you have any idea how many of 
them show up when it is time for them to go? The smart ones don't show 
up, obviously. So we need more detention space, and that is part of our 
legislation. The key point is that we provide the funding and the 
authorization necessary to get a handle on controlling the border and 
to deal with the apprehensions that occur as a result of that.
  The next thing we do is to provide for more internal enforcement, and 
for all of the different parts of the Department of Homeland Security 
that have a responsibility for enforcing the law in the interior. 
Today, an illegal immigrant knows if you get about 60 miles north of 
the border, you are literally home free in your new home because we 
don't have the law enforcement officials to do anything about it. That 
is especially difficult at the employment site. As you know, we have 
laws against hiring illegal immigrants, but they are not enforced. I 
think there were something like three actions brought last year against 
however many million employers we have in this country. The bottom line 
is we need an enforcement mechanism to ensure that whoever is entitled 
to be employed here, the employer can verify their eligibility, that it 
is easy to do, and that it is foolproof.
  So another part of our legislation is to provide a mechanism whereby 
it is the Government, not the employer, that decides who is eligible to 
be employed. Anybody with forged documents today can walk in to an 
employer and be hired, and the employer

[[Page 4709]]

can't look behind those documents and see whether it is a forgery. That 
burden should be on the Government, particularly since the simplest way 
to verify eligibility is with a good Social Security number, which our 
bill provides for. The Social Security database today is, frankly, a 
mess. It needs to be cleaned up. It can be cleaned up so you don't have 
10 different people all using the same phony number. In fact, we have 
over 100,000 people today using the number 000-00-0000. It doesn't take 
a real bright person to figure out there is something wrong with that 
situation.
  So the database can be cleaned up and then the employer can simply by 
law--and this is what the Cornyn-Kyl bill requires--type in the number 
that has been given to the respective employee and determine 
electronically whether that is a valid number. If the electronic 
message comes back that it is not a valid number, then don't hire the 
person or you are going to be in big trouble under our bill. But if it 
comes back and says it is a valid number, then you only have one thing 
to do, and that is match the number with the individual standing before 
you. That can be done by a couple of mechanisms: with a driver's 
license, and--depending upon what gets written into the bill--with the 
date of birth and place-of-birth verification information as well. So 
you are verifying the employee's eligibility under the law and that the 
individual applying for the job is the person with that number. Those 
are key components to the legislation we have introduced.
  We also think it is important to do two other key things. We should 
provide for work requirements in the future, with a temporary worker 
program. Let us forget for a moment the illegal immigrants who are 
already here. What the Cornyn-Kyl bill says is we are going to create a 
new temporary program for unskilled labor such as we have for skilled 
labor today. Today if you are a computer company and you need some more 
software designers and you can't get any from American universities, 
you can apply under a special American program for temporary workers to 
come from China or India or wherever they may come from. But they are 
only here for a temporary period of time. When you need those workers, 
you can apply for the visas, but when there are no jobs for those kinds 
of temporary workers, then visas are not issued. So it depends upon 
whether there is a job available that you can't find an American to do.
  We should do no more than that with regard to unskilled laborers 
because they present more potential problems in our society if times go 
bad and they don't have a job. So for unskilled, less educated workers, 
we need the same kind of temporary status, not permanent status. If, 
for example, in the construction industry--and I have a statistic here 
which I will cite in a moment--but we have a lot of illegal immigrants 
working in construction today. In my State of Arizona, we can't find 
enough people to build homes, there is such a housing boom right now. 
Under our program, we would be issuing more temporary work visas for 
people to come in and help us build homes. But I also know there have 
been many times when I have lived in Arizona that a good American 
citizen with good carpentry skills can't find a job. There are no jobs 
to be had. The housing market has fallen through the floor because we 
are in a recession and people are looking for work and they can't find 
it. In that situation it doesn't make sense to issue more temporary 
work visas for foreign workers, foreign construction workers In that 
case you wouldn't issue those permits because there is no job here. 
Under the notion that you should have a willing worker and willing 
employer, clearly if you don't have a job, you don't want to be issuing 
work permits.
  Our program is designed to be flexible enough to issue permits when 
you need the workers and not to issue the visas when you don't need the 
workers.
  Contrast it with the bill that is before us. There is no such 
flexibility. The number of visas is set, and it doesn't matter whether 
there is a job for the individual. People can still come into the 
country, and they are entitled to stay here forever, permanently. They 
are even put on a path to citizenship, even if there is no job here for 
them. That is not right. Our bill, as distinguished from that, is for 
temporary periods of time only.
  Then, finally we deal with the illegal immigrants who are here 
already who could, by the way, join up for that temporary worker 
program. We don't penalize them to prevent them from doing that. All of 
the bills or proposals I have looked at, including the Cornyn-Kyl 
proposal, provide that on an effective date, the illegal immigrants who 
are here go check in someplace. There are different places where they 
can check in, but the bottom line is they turn in their bad documents 
and get a new document that would enable them to stay in the United 
States for a period of time. In our bill it is 5 years. The President 
has proposed a total of 3 plus 3, 6 years. The Kennedy and McCain bill 
that is part of the bill before us has another period of time. But all 
of them have them check in and get a temporary visa. Here, that is good 
for a period of time. You get to travel back and forth during that 
period of time with no restriction. That is fine. We allow the person 
to stay here for up to 5 years.
  We do one other thing. There is a background check that is also 
provided in every bill. Under the bill that is before us, the 
background check is not followed up. That is to say, if you are a 
criminal, it doesn't matter. You can still participate in the program. 
Under the Cornyn-Kyl program, you would not be able to participate in 
the program if you are a criminal. We have an amendment pending that 
would make that the case for the bill that is on the Senate floor as 
well, so people who are so-called absconders--they have violated the 
judge's order to leave the country or who have committed a felony or 
three misdemeanors--would not be entitled to participate in the 
program.
  In any event, under the Cornyn-Kyl bill you are allowed to stay in 
the country up to 5 years. You can return to your home country at any 
time and start participating in the temporary worker program. If you 
stay here for the full 5 years, you also have to be working. But, if 
you want to go home, for example, to Mexico and get a laser visa, which 
is what would be required, that is a matter of days, less than a week. 
If you have a job with an American employer, you take with you a 
certificate of employment. So you leave the United States, you go to a 
consular office in Mexico, obtain your laser visa, and then present 
that at the border to come back into the United States and resume your 
work. The whole thing should take no more than a week, probably less 
than that.
  There are those who say: Why would people voluntarily participate in 
this program? I think it is fairly evident. We provide incentives for 
people to participate in it. The sooner you leave the United States and 
get your laser visa so that you can come in and work temporarily, the 
longer you could work in the temporary work program. We provide visas 
for up 2 years at a time. You can have a total of 6 years' worth of 
temporary work in the United States. So the sooner you start that 
process, obviously, the sooner you can start working under the 
temporary worker program.
  What is hard about that? In addition, you would be able to take with 
you, after you have finished your temporary worker status, the money 
that has accumulated in a savings account that is paid through a system 
which is parallel to the Social Security system today. You pay into the 
system, it is like your own personal account, and you take that money 
with you when you voluntarily depart the United States when your 
temporary visa expires--or before that if you want to. So there are 
incentives for people to comply with the law.
  Finally, there is this question of why people would report to be 
deported? I make it crystal clear that in our bill there is no 
deportation. I don't know what legislation they are talking about. I am 
not even sure there is any such thing in the House bill. In any

[[Page 4710]]

event, the Cornyn-Kyl bill has no provision for deportation. It doesn't 
require people to report to be deported--nothing of the kind. It is the 
same kind of check-in that is present in all the other bills. You check 
in, you get your temporary document that enables you to stay in the 
country, and, again, it is for up to 5 years.
  There is a Pew Hispanic research poll of Mexican immigrants here, who 
are illegal, who say that if they had an opportunity to continue to 
work here for up to 5 years--7 percent say they would then be willing 
to return home.
  I think it is a myth to say that someone who came here simply to work 
and earn money for their family, let's say from Mexico or El Salvador 
or whatever country you want to make it, that they would be unwilling 
to return home under the relatively generous provisions that we have 
established in our legislation.
  There are disincentives to stay beyond the time and there are 
incentives to leave within that period of time. You are entitled to 
become a temporary worker and, therefore, it seems to me, we are 
ascribing a pretty bad motive to people who would not voluntarily 
return to their home. In fact, to the extent that people say these are 
hard-working folks who just came here to work and make money, I am 
willing to accept that and therefore I think you don't all of a sudden 
change your mind after you get here and say: But I am not leaving no 
matter what you make the law to be.
  If these folks are otherwise law-abiding folks, I think they would 
want to comply with the law as we have set it out.
  The bottom line is, the Cornyn-Kyl bill provides a way for temporary 
workers to work in the United States. It provides a way for people who 
came here illegally to become legal, to stay here for up to 5 years, if 
they want, to continue to participate in the worker program after that, 
and, finally, if they decide they want to become legal permanent 
residents and therefore citizens of the United States, there is nothing 
that prohibits them from applying to do that as well. They would do it 
in the same way as you apply for it today. They wouldn't be given any 
advantage, nor would they be given any disadvantage under the Cornyn-
Kyl legislation.
  Might I inquire, under the unanimous consent agreement there is 15 
minutes for my time. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. KYL. Then I will be happy to summarize. The bottom line is we are 
going to have the opportunity to vote on several different alternative 
proposals. The Cornyn-Kyl proposal is one we will be able to vote for. 
I believe it provides a reasonable alternative to the proposal on the 
floor. It treats people humanely and fairly but doesn't provide that 
people stay here permanently when there is no job for them, and 
certainly in our history we know there have been times when our economy 
is not as good as it is now, and there will not be a job for everyone.
  Temporary work status, treating people humanely and fairly, providing 
for enforcement at the workplace, and, importantly, enforcement at the 
border, we think that is a good proposition. I hope when the time comes 
for us to consider our alternatives, my colleagues will give that a 
good opportunity, will discuss it thoroughly, and agree it is a good 
alternative to be discussing.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the agreement 
be modified to permit the Senator from Alaska to speak for 3 minutes 
before my 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.


                amendment no. 3217 to amendment no. 3192

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join Senator Mikulski in cosponsoring 
her amendment because it is of great importance to the State of Alaska.
  Seasonal workers are vital to our Nation's economy. Without the 
services these workers provide, many of our businesses would cease to 
operate. These visas are particularly important to the seafood and 
hospitality industries.
  Currently, the United States caps H-2B visas at 66,000 per year. Last 
year, Congress adopted the ``Save Our Small Businesses Act,'' which 
allocates the seasonal visas more equitably between the winter and 
summer months. It also exempts certain returning Seasonal Workers from 
the cap, making more visas available to new workers.
  Prior to the act's adoption, the H-2B visa cap was often met during 
the winter months, well before the summer season, resulting in a lack 
of available visas for much needed summer workers in the seafood and 
hospitality industry.
  Alaska's salmon industry is especially vulnerable when there are not 
enough temporary seasonal visas for the summer months.
  Salmon roe is a product that must be overseen by Japanese 
``Supervisor Technicians'' who grade the salmon roe prior to sale to 
Japanese consumers. Due to the particular grading and processing 
demands of the roe, without the technicians and the special 
certification, the Japanese will not buy the Alaskan roe.
  In some cases the value of the roe is greater than the flesh of the 
fish, so you can imagine how important it is to the salmon industry to 
get these technicians and certifications each year.
  Senator Mikulski's amendment simply extends to 2009 the ``Save Our 
Small Businesses Act.'' Securing a reasonable number of visas for 
seasonal industries is absolutely necessary.
  I urge the Senate to vote in favor of this amendment.


         Amendment No. 3193, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3192

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with 
respect to amendment No. 3193, the amendment we will be voting on later 
this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I have a modification of my amendment which I send to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3193), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SECTION 644. STRENGTHENING AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Strengthening American Citizenship Act of 2006''.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Oath of 
     Allegiance'' means the binding oath (or affirmation) of 
     allegiance required to be naturalized as a citizen of the 
     United States, as prescribed in section 337(e) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection 
     (h)(1)(B).
       (c) English Fluency.--
       (1) Education grants.--
       (A) Establishment.--The Chief of the Office of Citizenship 
     of the Department (referred to in this paragraph as the 
     ``Chief'') shall establish a grant program to provide grants 
     in an amount not to exceed $500 to assist legal residents of 
     the United States who declare an intent to apply for 
     citizenship in the United States to meet the requirements 
     under section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1423).
       (B) Use of funds.--Grant funds awarded under this paragraph 
     shall be paid directly to an accredited institution of higher 
     education or other qualified educational institution (as 
     determined by the Chief) for tuition, fees, books, and other 
     educational resources required by a course on the English 
     language in which the legal resident is enrolled.
       (C) Application.--A legal resident desiring a grant under 
     this paragraph shall submit an application to the Chief at 
     such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Chief may reasonably require.
       (D) Priority.--If insufficient funds are available to award 
     grants to all qualified applicants, the Chief shall give 
     priority based on the financial need of the applicants.
       (E) Notice.--The Secretary, upon relevant registration of a 
     legal resident with the Department, shall notify such legal 
     resident of the availability of grants under this paragraph 
     for legal residents who declare an intent to apply for United 
     States citizenship.
       (F) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection only, the 
     term ``legal resident'' means a lawful permanent resident or 
     a lawfully admitted alien who, in order to adjust status to 
     that of a lawful permanent resident, must demonstrate a 
     knowledge of the English language or satisfactory pursuit of 
     a course of study to aquire such knowledge of the English 
     langage.
       (2) Faster citizenship for english fluency.--Section 316 (8 
     U.S.C. 1427) is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 4711]]

       ``(g) A lawful permanent resident of the United States who 
     demonstrates English fluency, in accordance with regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, will satisfy the 
     residency requirement under subsection (a) upon the 
     completion of 4 years of continuous legal residency in the 
     United States.''.
       (3) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to--
       (A) modify the English language requirements for 
     naturalization under section 312(a)(1) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1423(a)(1)); or
       (B) influence the naturalization test redesign process of 
     the Office of Citizenship (except for the requirement under 
     subsection (h)(2)).
       (d) American Citizenship Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     competitive grant program to provide financial assistance 
     for--
       (A) efforts by entities (including veterans and patriotic 
     organizations) certified by the Office of Citizenship to 
     promote the patriotic integration of prospective citizens 
     into the American way of life by providing civics, history, 
     and English as a second language courses, with a specific 
     emphasis on attachment to principles of the Constitution of 
     the United States, the heroes of American history (including 
     military heroes), and the meaning of the Oath of Allegiance; 
     and
       (B) other activities approved by the Secretary to promote 
     the patriotic integration of prospective citizens and the 
     implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), including grants--
       (i) to promote an understanding of the form of government 
     and history of the United States; and
       (ii) to promote an attachment to the principles of the 
     Constitution of the United States and the well being and 
     happiness of the people of the United States.
       (2) Acceptance of gifts.--The Secretary may accept and use 
     gifts from the United States Citizenship Foundation, if the 
     foundation is established under subsection (e), for grants 
     under this subsection.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this subsection.
       (e) Funding for the Office of Citizenship.--
       (1) Authorization.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services, is authorized to establish the United States 
     Citizenship Foundation (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Foundation''), an organization duly incorporated in the 
     District of Columbia, exclusively for charitable and 
     educational purposes to support the functions of the Office 
     of Citizenship.
       (2) Dedicated funding.--
       (A) In general.--Not less than 1.5 percent of the funds 
     made available to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
     Services from fees shall be dedicated to the functions of the 
     Office of Citizenship, which shall include the patriotic 
     integration of prospective citizens into--
       (i) American common values and traditions, including an 
     understanding of American history and the principles of the 
     Constitution of the United States; and
       (ii) civic traditions of the United States, including the 
     Pledge of Allegiance, respect for the flag of the United 
     States, and voting in public elections.
       (B) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     dedicating increased funds to the Office of Citizenship 
     should not result in an increase in fees charged by the 
     Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
       (3) Gifts.--
       (A) To foundation.--The Foundation may solicit, accept, and 
     make gifts of money and other property in accordance with 
     section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (B) From foundation.--The Office of Citizenship may accept 
     gifts from the Foundation to support the functions of the 
     Office.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the mission of the Office of Citizenship, including the 
     functions described in paragraph (2)(A).
       (f) Restriction on Use of Funds.--No funds appropriated to 
     carry out a program under this subsection (d) or (e) may be 
     used to organize individuals for the purpose of political 
     activism or advocacy.
       (g) Reporting Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The Chief of the Office of Citizenship 
     shall submit an annual report to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate, the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) a list of the entities that have received funds from 
     the Office of Citizenship during the reporting period under 
     this section and the amount of funding received by each such 
     entity;
       (B) an evaluation of the extent to which grants received 
     under this section successfully promoted an understanding 
     of--
       (i) the English language; and
       (ii) American history and government, including the heroes 
     of American history, the meaning of the Oath of Allegiance, 
     and an attachment to the principles of the Constitution of 
     the United States; and
       (C) information about the number of legal residents who 
     were able to achieve the knowledge described under paragraph 
     (2) as a result of the grants provided under this section.
       (h) Oath or Affirmation of Renunciation and Allegiance.--
       (1) Revision of oath.--Section 337 (8 U.S.C. 1448) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``under section 310(b) 
     an oath'' and all that follows through ``personal moral 
     code.'' and inserting ``under section 310(b), the oath (or 
     affirmation) of allegiance prescribed in subsection (e).''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e)(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the oath (or 
     affirmation) of allegiance prescribed in this subsection is 
     as follows: `I take this oath solemnly, freely, and without 
     any mental reservation. I absolutely and entirely renounce 
     all allegiance to any foreign state or power of which I have 
     been a subject or citizen. My fidelity and allegiance from 
     this day forward are to the United States of America. I will 
     bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and laws 
     of the United States, and will support and defend them 
     against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will bear arms, 
     or perform noncombatant military or civilian service, on 
     behalf of the United States when required by law. This I do 
     solemnly swear, so help me God.'.
       ``(2) If a person, by reason of religious training and 
     belief (or individual interpretation thereof) or for other 
     reasons of good conscience, cannot take the oath prescribed 
     in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) with the term `oath' included, the term `affirmation' 
     shall be substituted for the term `oath'; and
       ``(B) with the phrase `so help me God' included, the phrase 
     `so help me God' shall be omitted.
       ``(3) If a person shows by clear and convincing evidence to 
     the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such person, by 
     reason of religious training and belief, cannot take the oath 
     prescribed in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) because such person is opposed to the bearing of arms 
     in the Armed Forces of the United States, the words `bear 
     arms, or' shall be omitted; and
       ``(B) because such person is opposed to any type of service 
     in the Armed Forces of the United States, the words `bear 
     arms, or' and `noncombatant military or' shall be omitted.
       ``(4) As used in this subsection, the term `religious 
     training and belief'--
       ``(A) means a belief of an individual in relation to a 
     Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from 
     any human relation; and
       ``(B) does not include essentially political, sociological, 
     or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.
       ``(5) Any reference in this title to `oath' or `oath of 
     allegiance' under this section shall be deemed to refer to 
     the oath (or affirmation) of allegiance prescribed under this 
     subsection.''.
       (2) History and government test.--The Secretary shall 
     incorporate a knowledge and understanding of the meaning of 
     the Oath of Allegiance into the history and government test 
     given to applicants for citizenship.
       (3) Notice to foreign embassies.--Upon the naturalization 
     of a new citizen, the Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of State, shall notify the embassy of the country 
     of which the new citizen was a citizen or subject that such 
     citizen has--
       (A) renounced allegiance to that foreign country; and
       (B) sworn allegiance to the United States.
       (4) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (i) Establishment of New Citizens Award Program.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a new citizens 
     award program to recognize citizens who--
       (A) have made an outstanding contribution to the United 
     States; and
       (B) were naturalized during the 10-year period ending on 
     the date of such recognition.
       (2) Presentation authorized.--
       (A) In general.--The President is authorized to present a 
     medal, in recognition of outstanding contributions to the 
     United States, to citizens described in paragraph (1).
       (B) Maximum number of awards.--Not more than 10 citizens 
     may receive a medal under this subsection in any calendar 
     year.
       (3) Design and striking.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall strike a medal with suitable emblems, devices, and 
     inscriptions, to be determined by the President.
       (4) National medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this 
     subsection are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       (j) Naturalization Ceremonies.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Director of the National Park Service, the Archivist of the 
     United

[[Page 4712]]

     States, and other appropriate Federal officials, shall 
     develop and implement a strategy to enhance the public 
     awareness of naturalization ceremonies.
       (2) Venues.--In developing the strategy under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall consider the use of 
     outstanding and historic locations as venues for select 
     naturalization ceremonies.
       (3) Reporting requirement.--The Secretary shall submit an 
     annual report to Congress that includes--
       (A) the content of the strategy developed under this 
     subsection; and
       (B) the progress made towards the implementation of such 
     strategy.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this afternoon at 5:30 we will be 
casting two votes: one on Senator Bingaman's amendment which has to do 
with border security, the second is a different kind of amendment. It 
is an amendment about what I call the rest of the immigration story, 
helping prospective citizens become Americans.
  I know border security is extremely important. We are starting with 
that because the principle of the rule of law is at stake. I know it is 
extremely important for us to create a temporary legal status, as has 
been discussed this afternoon by Senators Cornyn and Kyl and Sessions, 
for students we welcome here to study and workers we welcome here to 
work. We are going to be talking today and this week about that.
  But I submit the most important thing we will be discussing this 
week, and the most important part of any story on immigration, has to 
do with a different principle, and that is the three words right up 
here above the Presiding Officer's chair, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' one from 
many, the motto of our country, the greatest achievement of the United 
States of America.
  We have taken all this magnificent diversity from all over the world 
and we have turned it into one nation, a nation with a common heritage, 
a common history, a common language--something no other country in the 
world has been able to do nearly as well.
  This amendment is about redoubling our efforts to help prospective 
citizens who are here legally to become Americans. The amendment 
reflects the work of several Senators in this Chamber. Senators Cornyn 
and Isakson and Cochran and Santorum and I, earlier, along with Senator 
McConnell and Senator Frist, had offered legislation we called the 
Strengthening American Citizenship Act, which I will describe in a 
minute.
  In the last two Congresses, Senator Schumer and I introduced 
legislation that would take the oath of allegiance that a half million 
to a million new citizens take every year and put it into the law, give 
it the same sort of status extended to other important national 
symbols, such as the Star-Spangled Banner, our national anthem. Several 
of us here--Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Byrd, and Senator 
Burns--have been working to try to put the teaching of American history 
back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up 
learning what it means to be American.
  This is about helping prospective citizens become Americans. Becoming 
American is no small thing. We don't think about becoming French, or 
becoming English, or becoming Japanese, or becoming German because in 
most countries in the world you become a citizen, if you can at all, 
based upon your race, your ancestry, your background.
  We are just the opposite here. You cannot become a citizen of the 
United States based upon your race, your ancestry, or your background. 
In fact, you only may become a citizen of the United States if you move 
here from another country by going through a series of steps, which 
includes pledging allegiance to the founding documents that embody the 
principles that unite us as Americans. We are united by ideals.
  This debate this week is a good debate because it brings up many of 
those principles and ideals that unite us, and it is typical of most of 
our debates on this floor. Those ideals often conflict. We have the 
idea of a nation of immigrants conflicting with the rule of law here. 
That is why we are having a difficult time figuring out what to do 
about the 10 million or 11 million people who are here illegally.
  We have to weigh the facts as we talk about how many temporary 
workers we want, and that we have the principle of laissez faire in our 
character. We have a free enterprise system. We want people to work. We 
want to attract them here. As a part of that principle of laissez 
faire, we have in the bill that Senator Specter reported two important 
provisions that make it easier for some of the brightest people outside 
of our country to come to our country and help create a higher standard 
of living for us.
  We have some very outdated and nonsensical provisions in our 
immigration laws. If Werner von Braun showed up wanting to come to a 
university today, or a Werner von Braun of this generation, he would 
have to swear he was going to go home. We wouldn't want him to go home. 
We want the brightest people here in our universities and in our 
research institutes so they can help us create better jobs and a higher 
standard of living here. Otherwise, those jobs go to India, to China, 
and other parts of the world.
  We have many principles at stake. Here is exactly what the amendment 
does we will be voting on this afternoon after Senator Bingaman's 
amendment. First, it would help legal immigrants who are embarked on a 
path toward citizenship to learn our common language--English--our 
history, and our way of Government by these provisions.
  One, providing them with a $500 grant for an English course. There 
are a great many people here who want to learn English. I think it is a 
myth that those people who come to this country don't want to learn 
English. For older people who come here, it is harder. But in 2004, 
1.142 million individuals participated in English literacy programs 
designed to help improve English language for immigrants. Seventy-one 
percent of those participants are Hispanics. Twenty-eight percent of 
all English literacy adult education programs reported having waiting 
lists. Thirty-five percent of those reported lists of 50 or more people 
on the waiting lists. We have a lot of people here who want to learn 
our common language, and we should want them to learn our common 
language. It is important to unite us as a country to do that.
  Second, we would allow those who become fluent in English--not just 
basic in English but fluent and proficient in English--to apply for 
citizenship 1 year early; that is, after 4 years instead of 5. That is 
a major change. In order to become a citizen, one must be here 5 years 
under the present rules. One should have good character and pass a test 
about our Constitution and principles. None of that changes. Today, one 
must learn English--a basic level of understanding.
  In addition to helping people learn English with grants which may be 
used in any accredited educational institution, why not give those who 
become proficient in English the incentive of becoming a citizen in 4 
years? That is what this amendment would do. It would provide grants to 
organizations to offer courses in American history and civics so that 
new citizens could learn the principles that unite us as a country. It 
authorizes a new foundation to assist in these efforts. This is an area 
ripe for public-private opportunity. I think there are a great many 
people--many of whom may be immigrants themselves--who would want to 
contribute to a new foundation that would help new citizens learn more 
about our country.
  We codify the oath of allegiance which new citizens swear when they 
are naturalized. This is a remarkable law. One-half million to a 
million new Americans this year will take the oath. They renounce where 
they come from, and they pledge allegiance to where they are coming. Of 
course, we are all proud of where we came from, but we are prouder 
still to be Americans. This provision puts this into law. It is 
essentially the same oath George Washington himself took in 1778 at 
Valley Forge and administered to his own officers. It is the same oath 
that millions upon millions of new citizens of this country have taken 
for 200 years. This would dignify it and make it a part of our law.

[[Page 4713]]

  In addition, this amendment asks the Department of Homeland Security 
to work with the National Archives, the National Park Service, and 
others to carry out a strategy to highlight the ceremonies in which 
immigrants become American citizens.
  I have been to many of those ceremonies. There is not a more moving 
experience anywhere in America--and these events happen virtually every 
day in some Federal courthouse, where 30, 45, or 70 prospective 
citizens will arrive in the courthouse. The judge will say something 
about our country and what this means, and then these men and women 
from all across the country, neatly dressed, many of them with tears in 
their eyes, raise their hands, having been here 5 years, shown good 
character, learned English, and passed the test about our Constitution 
and they renounce allegiance to where they have come from and they 
pledge allegiance to this country. Those ceremonies will be 
highlighted.
  Finally, it establishes an award to recognize the contributions of 
outstanding new American citizens.
  I would suspect that this new award would one day, perhaps very 
quickly, become as important as the Presidential Medal of Freedom 
because it will not be hard to find outstanding contributions by new 
immigrants to our country.
  I see the Senator from New Mexico on the floor. He and I have heard 
it often said that of the 100 Americans who have won the Nobel Prize in 
physics, 60 are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Each of us 
knows of such a list, and for the President to be able to identify up 
to 10 such immigrants who have made great contributions to our country 
and to recognize them every year will make a difference.
  How much will this cost? It won't cost the taxpayers a penny because 
these grants to help people learn English, which is the major cost, 
will be paid for by the visa fees that are paid each year.
  This is an important amendment. I believe it is the most important 
subject we have before us: helping prospective citizens learn English, 
giving them an incentive to become a citizen in 4 years instead of 5, 
as they become proficient in English, providing grants to encourage the 
teaching of American history and civics, creating a new foundation to 
assist in that, codifying the oath of allegiance, highlighting the 
ceremonies in which citizens become new Americans, and then allowing 
the President to designate a handful of new Americans every year who 
contributed so much to our country.
  During these next few weeks, we should enact legislation to secure 
our borders. Then we should create a legal status for workers and 
students. We welcome them to increase our standard of living, as well 
as export our values. But we should not complete our work on a 
comprehensive immigration law without remembering why we have placed 
that three-word motto above the Presiding Officer's Chair, without 
remembering that our unity did not come without a lot of effort, 
without noticing lessons from overseas in France and Great Britain that 
remind us it is more important today than ever to help prospective 
citizens become Americans.
  I notice the Senator from New Mexico on the floor. The majority has 
all the time remaining, if the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to 
discuss it. I would be glad to yield some of that time to the Senator 
from New Mexico if wants to discuss his amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are about to vote on two amendments at 
5:30. I believe both of these are good amendments. Senator Alexander 
has proposed an amendment which will facilitate immigrants learning 
English. I think that is a very sound approach. Senator Bingaman has 
promoted an amendment which would enhance border control and funding. I 
believe both are good amendments.
  I yield the floor for additional comment--I see Senator Bingaman 
rising--and give him an opportunity to speak. We are going to be voting 
in another 3 or 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
courtesy. When the time comes, I will call up my amendment No. 3210. I 
gather there is a modification of that amendment at the desk. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be modified, if that is appropriate at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is appropriate at this time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, it is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3210), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

              TITLE __--BORDER LAW ENFORCEMENT RELIEF ACT

     SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Border Law Enforcement 
     Relief Act of 2006''

     SEC. _02. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is the obligation of the Federal Government of the 
     United States to adequately secure the Nation's borders and 
     prevent the flow of undocumented persons and illegal drugs 
     into the United States.
       (2) Despite the fact that the United States Border Patrol 
     apprehends over 1,000,000 people each year trying to 
     illegally enter the United States, according to the 
     Congressional Research Service, the net growth in the number 
     of unauthorized aliens has increased by approximately 500,000 
     each year. The Southwest border accounts for approximately 94 
     percent of all migrant apprehensions each year. Currently, 
     there are an estimated 11,000,000 unauthorized aliens in the 
     United States.
       (3) The border region is also a major corridor for the 
     shipment of drugs. According to the El Paso Intelligence 
     Center, 65 percent of the narcotics that are sold in the 
     markets of the United States enter the country through the 
     Southwest Border.
       (4) Border communities continue to incur significant costs 
     due to the lack of adequate border security. A 2001 study by 
     the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition found that 
     law enforcement and criminal justice expenses associated with 
     illegal immigration exceed $89,000,000 annually for the 
     Southwest border counties.
       (5) In August 2005, the States of New Mexico and Arizona 
     declared states of emergency in order to provide local law 
     enforcement immediate assistance in addressing criminal 
     activity along the Southwest border.
       (6) While the Federal Government provides States and 
     localities assistance in covering costs related to the 
     detention of certain criminal aliens and the prosecution of 
     Federal drug cases, local law enforcement along the border 
     are provided no assistance in covering such expenses and must 
     use their limited resources to combat drug trafficking, human 
     smuggling, kidnappings, the destruction of private property, 
     and other border-related crimes.
       (7) The United States shares 5,525 miles of border with 
     Canada and 1,989 miles with Mexico. Many of the local law 
     enforcement agencies located along the border are small, 
     rural departments charged with patrolling large areas of 
     land. Counties along the Southwest United States-Mexico 
     border are some of the poorest in the country and lack the 
     financial resources to cover the additional costs associated 
     with illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and other border-
     related crimes.
       (8) Federal assistance is required to help local law 
     enforcement operating along the border address the unique 
     challenges that arise as a result of their proximity to an 
     international border and the lack of overall border security 
     in the region

     SEC. _03. BORDER RELIEF GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants, subject to the availability of appropriations to an 
     eligible law enforcement agency to provide assistance to such 
     agency to address--
       (A) criminal activity that occurs in the jurisdiction of 
     such agency by virtue of such agency's proximity to the 
     United States border; and
       (B) the impact of any lack of security along the United 
     States border.
       (2) Duration.--Grants may be awarded under this subsection 
     during fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
       (3) Competitive basis.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     under this subsection on a competitive basis, except that the 
     Secretary shall give priority to applications from any 
     eligible law enforcement agency serving a community--
       (A) with a population of less than 50,000; and
       (B) located no more than 100 miles from a United States 
     border with--
       (i) Canada; or
       (ii) Mexico.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded pursuant to subsection 
     (a) may only be used to

[[Page 4714]]

     provide additional resources for an eligible law enforcement 
     agency to address criminal activity occurring along any such 
     border, including--
       (1) to obtain equipment;
       (2) to hire additional personnel;
       (3) to upgrade and maintain law enforcement technology;
       (4) to cover operational costs, including overtime and 
     transportation costs; and
       (5) such other resources as are available to assist that 
     agency.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Each eligible law enforcement agency 
     seeking a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) describe the activities for which assistance under this 
     section is sought; and
       (B) provide such additional assurances as the Secretary 
     determines to be essential to ensure compliance with the 
     requirements of this section.
       (d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) Eligible law enforcement agency.--The term ``eligible 
     law enforcement agency'' means a tribal, State, or local law 
     enforcement agency--
       (A) located in a county no more than 100 miles from a 
     United States border with--
       (i) Canada; or
       (ii) Mexico; or
       (B) located in a county more than 100 miles from any such 
     border, but where such county has been certified by the 
     Secretary as a High Impact Area.
       (2) High impact area.--The term ``High Impact Area'' means 
     any county designated by the Secretary as such, taking into 
     consideration--
       (A) whether local law enforcement agencies in that county 
     have the resources to protect the lives, property, safety, or 
     welfare of the residents of that county;
       (B) the relationship between any lack of security along the 
     United States border and the rise, if any, of criminal 
     activity in that county; and
       (C) any other unique challenges that local law enforcement 
     face due to a lack of security along the United States 
     border.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Department of Homeland Security.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to 
     carry out the provisions of this section.
       (2) Division of authorized funds.--Of the amounts 
     authorized under paragraph (1)--
       (A) \2/3\ shall be set aside for eligible law enforcement 
     agencies located in the 6 States with the largest number of 
     undocumented alien apprehensions; and
       (B) \1/3\ shall be set aside for areas designated as a High 
     Impact Area under subsection (d).
       (f) Supplement Not Supplant.--Amounts appropriated for 
     grants under this section shall be used to supplement and not 
     supplant other State and local public funds obligated for the 
     purposes provided under this title.

     SEC. _04. ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize State 
     or local law enforcement agencies or their officers to 
     exercise Federal immigration law enforcement authority.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a competitive 
grant program in the Department of Homeland Security to help local law 
enforcement that is situated along our borders.
  We see the situation in my State of New Mexico all the time--and have 
for many years--where local law enforcement agencies very much need 
assistance in combating border-related criminal activity. That is the 
smuggling of drugs into the country, the stealing of automobiles, a 
variety of criminal activity that occurs by virtue of the Federal 
Government's inability to properly secure our international borders. 
This is a responsibility that should not be dumped on local law 
enforcement.
  The amendment I am offering, along with Senators Domenici and Kyl, 
would provide for a $50-million-a-year grant program to local law 
enforcement to assist them with this very substantial burden they have 
and that should be the responsibility of the Federal Government.
  I will speak, I gather, for another 60 seconds on this amendment once 
we get to it, but at this point I see the time for voting is about upon 
us. Therefore, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are scheduled to vote in 3 minutes. We 
have a good many amendments which have been filed so far. We are going 
to be looking to start the debate early tomorrow morning. I urge my 
colleagues who have amendments and who would like to debate them 
early--a good time to find time to debate is on Tuesday morning, which 
is a lot better than Thursday afternoon. I urge our colleagues to come 
forward and state their willingness to debate.
  As I stated earlier, we are going to be holding the votes to 15 
minutes plus the 5-minute grace period. We are going to be cutting them 
off at 20 minutes. We are going to establish that pattern on this bill, 
with the majority leader's authorization. We know the practice on some 
occasions has been to have the votes run 30 minutes or 35 minutes, a 
long time, which eats into the floor time. We have a big job ahead of 
us on this bill this week. I urge my colleagues to come within the 20-
minute timeframe.
  I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allen be 
added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3206.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired.


                    Amendment No. 3210, as Modified

  The pending amendment is the Bingaman amendment. Two minutes is 
equally divided.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I gather my amendment has been modified.
  I call up amendment No. 3210, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment, as I stated a few 
minutes ago, is an amendment to provide additional resources to local 
law enforcement agencies along our borders, both with Mexico and with 
Canada. The truth is, because of the increased activity there, because 
of the inability, the failure of the Federal Government to properly 
enforce our border and secure our borders, local law enforcement 
agencies, sheriffs, and city police agencies have a very substantial 
additional responsibility to deal with criminal activity. This 
amendment tries to help them with that by setting up a grant program. 
It is $50 million a year, which is probably not adequate, but it is a 
substantial improvement over what we currently have.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a good amendment. I urge 
agreement of this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Mexico on 
his amendment. It improves the bill being considered by the Senate. The 
Bingaman amendment enhances our efforts to be tough and smart in 
immigration reform by providing State and local law enforcement 
agencies with additional assistance.
  The Judiciary Committee sent a bill approved by a bipartisan vote of 
12-6 to the Senate. It is a bill that is strong on enforcement. It is 
stronger than the bill introduced by the senior Senator from Tennessee, 
who started from the same place as the committee bill but did not 
include some of the enforcement measures added by amendment during 
Committee consideration and neglected some of the bipartisan 
improvements that we made. For example, the Frist bill does not include 
a provision added by the Committee at the urging of Senator Feinstein 
to make tunneling under our borders a federal crime. The committee bill 
adds new criminal penalties for evading immigration officers and the 
committee bill includes a Feinstein amendment to add 12,000 new border 
patrol agents, at 2,400 each year for the next 5 years.
  The committee bill is enforcement ``plus.'' It starts with strong 
enforcement provisions and border security to be sure, but it is also 
comprehensive and balanced. It confronts the problem of 12 million 
undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows. It values work. It 
respects human dignity. It

[[Page 4715]]

includes guest worker provisions supported by business and labor. It 
includes a way to pay fines and earn citizenship that has the support 
of religious and leading Hispanic organizations.
  I continue to work with Chairman Specter in a bipartisan way to enact 
the committee bill. Our bill provides a realistic and reasonable system 
for immigration. Our bill protects America's borders, strengthens 
enforcement and remains true to American values.
  The committee bill wisely dropped controversial provisions that would 
have exposed those who provide humanitarian relief, medical care, 
shelter, counseling and other basic services that help undocumented 
aliens to possible prosecution under felony alien smuggling provisions 
of the criminal law. I thank so many in the relief and religious 
communities for speaking out on this matter. Those criminal provisions 
should be focused on the smugglers, and under the committee bill, that 
is what we did.
  The Committee also voted down a measure that would have criminalized 
mere presence in an undocumented status in the United States. Illegal 
status is currently a civil offense with very serious consequences, 
including deportation, but criminalizing that status was punitive and 
wrong. It would have led to further harsh consequences and trapped 
people in permanent under-
class status. These criminalization measures, which were included in 
the House-passed bill supported by congressional Republicans and are 
reflected in the Frist bill, have understandable sparked nationwide 
protests. They are viewed by many as anti-immigrant and inconsistent 
with American values and history. The committee bill, while tough on 
enforcement and on the smugglers, is smarter and fairer.
  The Bingaman amendment adds to our product. It is a constructive 
amendment. I hope that it will be supported by all Senators, whether 
Republican, Democratic or Independent. Border law enforcement agencies 
deserve our support as they are confronted with border-related criminal 
activity. I thank the Senator for including both the northern and 
southern borders in his concerns and within the coverage of his 
amendment.
  The amendment recognizes the failures of the Federal Government over 
the last few years and its failure to provide adequate security along 
our borders. As the Senator from New Mexico has said, when such 
failures impose costs on local communities, the Federal Government 
should help.
  The peaceful demonstrations around the country over the last few 
weeks call on the Congress to recognize the human dignity of all and to 
do the right thing, in keeping with longstanding American values. We 
need a comprehensive solution to a national problem. We need a fair, 
realistic and reasonable system that includes both tough enforcement 
and immigration reform provisions. All Senators should be able to agree 
with these principles.
  I was glad to hear that President Bush was speaking recently about 
the need for a path to citizenship and the need for a comprehensive 
bill. Of course, as we proceed through their sixth year in office, the 
Bush-Cheney administration has still not sent a legislative proposal to 
the Congress on these matters. Instead of waiting, we have done the 
hard work and are writing a tough, smart, comprehensive bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent. The 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator 
from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Nelson), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) would 
each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Warner

                                NAYS--6

     Bunning
     Coburn
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Thomas
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Biden
     Clinton
     Graham
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3210), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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.


                    Amendment No. 3193, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
evenly divided on the Alexander amendment.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the last vote was more than 26 minutes. 
This is the first vote of the week. I say again, we are going to hold 
the votes to 15 and 5.
  We are now prepared to move ahead to Senator Alexander's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 1 minute on his 
amendment.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this is an amendment about the motto 
above the Presiding Officer's desk. It helps legal immigrants who are 
embarked on a path toward citizenship to learn our common language, 
English, to learn our history and our way of government, by providing 
them with grants. It allows legal residents to earn their citizenship 
in 4 years instead of 5 if they become fluent in English. It provides 
grants to organizations to offer courses in American history and 
civics, sets up a foundation to assist with that, codifies the oath of 
allegiance that immigrants take and dignifies the ceremonies in which 
immigrants become American citizens, and establishes an award to 
recognize the contributions of outstanding new American citizens.
  The amendment reflects the work of a number of Senators. Senator 
Schumer and I have worked on the oath. Senator Byrd, Senator Reid, 
Senator Burns, and I have worked on American history. Senators Cornyn 
and Cochran and others have cosponsored the Strengthening American 
Citizenship Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe be added 
as a cosponsor of the amendment, along with Senators Frist, McConnell, 
Isakson, Cochran, Santorum, and McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page 4716]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a good amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Before yielding back the remainder of the manager's 2 minutes, may I 
say that the majority leader has stated that we will go into session 
tomorrow morning at 9:45. We will be on the bill immediately. Whoever 
has an amendment, I suggest he contact me or my staff. We have a large 
staff in the Chamber ready to talk about amendments, to accept them 
where possible, and to set time limits to debate them where we cannot 
accept them.
  I yield back the remainder of the 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3193, as amended.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent. The 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Santorum), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), and the 
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--1

       
     Thomas
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Biden
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3193), as modified, was agreed to
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 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. LEVIN. Mr. 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. OBAMA. 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. OBAMA. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to enter the 
debate on comprehensive immigration reform. It is a debate that will 
touch on the basic questions of morality, the law, and what it means to 
be an American.
  I know that this debate evokes strong passions on all sides. The 
recent peaceful but passionate protests that we saw all across the 
country--500,000 in Los Angeles and 100,000 in my hometown of Chicago--
are a testament to this fact, as are the concerns of millions of 
Americans about the security of our borders.
  But I believe we can work together to pass immigration reform in a 
way that unites the people in this country, not in a way that divides 
us by playing on our worst instincts and fears.
  Like millions of Americans, the immigrant story is also my story. My 
father came here from Kenya, and I represent a State where vibrant 
immigrant communities ranging from Mexican to Polish to Irish enrich 
our cities and neighborhoods. So I understand the allure of freedom and 
opportunity that fuels the dream of a life in the United States. But I 
also understand the need to fix a broken system.
  When Congress last addressed this issue comprehensively in 1986, 
there were approximately 4 million illegal immigrants living in the 
United States. That number had grown substantially when Congress again 
addressed the issue in 1996. Today, it is estimated that there are more 
than 11 million undocumented aliens living in our country.
  The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those 
who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect 
the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are 
challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the 
United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are 
right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the 
immigration laws.
  The bill the Judiciary Committee has passed would clearly strengthen 
enforcement. I will repeat that, because those arguing against the 
Judiciary Committee bill contrast that bill with a strong enforcement 
bill. The bill the Judiciary Committee passed clearly strengthens 
enforcement. To begin with, the agencies charged with border security 
would receive new technology, new facilities, and more people to stop, 
process, and deport illegal immigrants.
  But while security might start at our borders, it doesn't end there. 
Millions of undocumented immigrants live and work here without our 
knowing their identity or their background. We need to strike a 
workable bargain with them. They have to acknowledge that breaking our 
immigration laws was wrong. They must pay a penalty, and abide by all 
of our laws going forward. They must earn the right to stay over a 6-
year period, and then they must wait another 5 years as legal permanent 
residents before they become citizens.
  But in exchange for accepting those penalties, we must allow 
undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and step on a path 
toward full participation in our society. In fact, I will not support 
any bill that does not provide this earned path to citizenship for the 
undocumented population--not just for humanitarian reasons; not just 
because these people, having broken the law, did so for the best of 
motives, to try and provide a better life for their children and their 
grandchildren; but also because this is the only practical way we can 
get a handle on the population that is within our borders right now.
  To keep from having to go through this difficult process again in the 
future, we must also replace the flow of undocumented immigrants coming 
to work here with a new flow of guestworkers. Illegal immigration is 
bad for illegal immigrants and bad for the workers against whom they 
compete.
  Replacing the flood of illegals with a regulated stream of legal 
immigrants who enter the United States after background checks and who 
are provided labor rights would enhance our security, raise wages, and 
improve working conditions for all Americans.
  But I fully appreciate that we cannot create a new guestworker 
program without making it as close to impossible as we can for illegal 
workers to find employment. We do not need new guestworkers plus future 
undocumented immigrants. We need guest-
workers instead of undocumented immigrants.

[[Page 4717]]

  Toward that end, American employers need to take responsibility. Too 
often illegal immigrants are lured here with a promise of a job, only 
to receive unconscionably low wages. In the interest of cheap labor, 
unscrupulous employers look the other way when employees provide 
fraudulent U.S. citizenship documents. Some actually call and place 
orders for undocumented workers because they don't want to pay minimum 
wages to American workers in surrounding communities. These acts hurt 
both American workers and immigrants whose sole aim is to work hard and 
get ahead. That is why we need a simple, foolproof, and mandatory 
mechanism for all employers to check the legal status of new hires. 
Such a mechanism is in the Judiciary Committee bill.
  And before any guestworker is hired, the job must be made available 
to Americans at a decent wage with benefits. Employers then need to 
show that there are no Americans to take these jobs. I am not willing 
to take it on faith that there are jobs that Americans will not take. 
There has to be a showing. If this guestworker program is to succeed, 
it must be properly calibrated to make certain that these are jobs that 
cannot be filled by Americans, or that the guestworkers provide 
particular skills we can't find in this country.
  I know that dealing with the undocumented population is difficult, 
for practical and political reasons. But we simply cannot claim to have 
dealt with the problems of illegal immigration if we ignore the illegal 
resident population or pretend they will leave voluntarily. Some of the 
proposed ideas in Congress provide a temporary legal status and call 
for deportation, but fail to answer how the government would deport 11 
million people. I don't know how it would be done. I don't know how we 
would line up all the buses and trains and airplanes and send 11 
million people back to their countries of origin. I don't know why it 
is that we expect they would voluntarily leave after having taken the 
risk of coming to this country without proper documentation.
  I don't know many police officers across the country who would go 
along with the bill that came out of the House, a bill that would, if 
enacted, charge undocumented immigrants with felonies, and arrest 
priests who are providing meals to hungry immigrants, or people who are 
running shelters for women who have been subject to domestic abuse. I 
cannot imagine that we would be serious about making illegal immigrants 
into felons, and going after those who would aid such persons.
  That approach is not serious. That is symbolism, that is demagoguery. 
It is important that if we are going to deal with this problem, we deal 
with it in a practical, commonsense way. If temporary legal status is 
granted but the policy says these immigrants are never good enough to 
become Americans, then the policy that makes little sense.
  I believe successful, comprehensive immigration reform can be 
achieved by building on the work of the Judiciary Committee. The 
Judiciary Committee bill combines some of the strongest elements of 
Senator Hagel's border security proposals with the realistic workplace 
and earned-citizenship program proposed by Senators McCain and Kennedy.
  Mr. President, I will come to the floor over the next week to offer 
some amendments of my own, and to support amendments my colleagues will 
offer. I will also come to the floor to argue against amendments that 
contradict our tradition as a nation of immigrants and as a nation of 
laws.
  As FDR reminded the Nation at the 50th anniversary of the dedication 
of the Statue of Liberty, those who landed at Ellis Island ``were the 
men and women who had the supreme courage to strike out for themselves, 
to abandon language and relatives, to start at the bottom without 
influence, without money, and without knowledge of life in a very young 
civilization.''
  It behooves us to remember that not every single immigrant who came 
into the United States through Ellis Island had proper documentation. 
Not every one of our grandparents or great-grandparents would have 
necessarily qualified for legal immigration. But they came here in 
search of a dream, in search of hope. Americans understand that, and 
they are willing to give an opportunity to those who are already here, 
as long as we get serious about making sure that our borders actually 
mean something.
  Today's immigrants seek to follow in the same tradition of 
immigration that has built this country. We do ourselves and them a 
disservice if we do not recognize the contributions of these 
individuals. And we fail to protect our Nation if we do not regain 
control over our immigration system immediately.
  Mr. President, 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. 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, we have been talking about the 
immigration challenge that is facing this country. It is one that needs 
to be faced and dealt with, and I believe it is possible for us to 
achieve comprehensive reform. Unfortunately, the legislation before us 
today will not do the job. It will not be consistent with what I have 
heard from my Alabama voters or with what we have been telling our 
voters all over the country that we would do in immigration 
legislation.
  Let me make a couple of points about this issue.
  There are two aspects, I guess one can say. One aspect is what to do 
about those people who are here illegally and how should they be 
treated, which ones should be allowed to stay and which ones should not 
be allowed to stay and under what conditions.
  Those are all very important matters for us to discuss in some depth 
and, frankly, we have not done that, not in any effective way. We 
passed that portion of the immigration bill last Monday after about 3 
hours of debate, at 6 o'clock, and the bill was on the floor the next 
day or Wednesday, and what we actually passed out of committee was 
printed Wednesday night. So there was very little serious discussion 
about the bill.
  It is a tremendous problem. We are dealing with 1.1 million people 
entering the country illegally being arrested each year by our Border 
Patrol agency--1.1 million. This is huge. We have a system, I heard the 
Democratic leader say earlier today, that is lawless and it is chaos. 
If we are going to deal comprehensively with the human situation we are 
facing, ought we not also deal with the challenges of the legal system 
and try to make our borders a lawful place instead of chaos?
  First, I want to say, we can do this. It is not that difficult. We 
simply have to take down the ``come on in'' sign that is there, that 
``come on in illegally and sooner or later we are going to make you 
legal'' sign. We need to create enforcement on the border and create 
good enforcement at the workplace, and then we can reach that tipping 
point where people find that it is better to get that biometric card 
and come to the right border crossing and go there and present it and 
go right in. And you can go right back home when you want to go home. 
It would work. It can be made to work.
  Let me tell you the challenges that are in existence and why I think 
we haven't met those challenges. We have 1.1 million arrests. I think 
it is possible that if we get serious and send that clear message to 
the world that you have to come lawfully, we might see a lot fewer 
people attempt to come illegally. As a matter of fact, I am confident 
of that.
  Another problem we have is those who are ``other than Mexicans.'' It 
has been referred to now consistently as the catch-and-release policy. 
This is the deal: If you apprehend someone who is a Mexican, they can 
easily be taken back across the border, maybe that day or within a day 
or two. But what if someone is caught coming across the border from 
Brazil or the islands or China or someplace like that? It is a much 
more difficult problem. We

[[Page 4718]]

have not done a good job of confronting it, and what has happened is, 
those people have been arrested at the border and many times they just 
turn themselves in to the agents. They take them 100 or so miles 
further inside the border, and they are released on bail and they are 
asked to come back to this hearing to explain why they are here 
illegally. Well, they don't come back. In fact, in one district, in one 
area, 95 percent of the people released after being caught didn't show 
up for their hearing.
  Does that not make a mockery of the law? And they are not even 
putting their names into the National Crime Information Center--they 
haven't been. They say they are, but still only a small number are 
getting in the system so that if they are apprehended somewhere else in 
the country, they will be picked up. If you skip on a DUI charge, they 
put your name in the NCIC, and if you are stopped in Maryland or 
Virginia or New York or California, you will get a hit that you are 
wanted for a DUI somewhere. We are not doing that. That indicates a 
lack of interest in seeing that the law works. So that has to be fixed. 
They say they are going to fix it, but it hasn't been fixed.
  In the appellate process--we had a hearing this morning--and Senator 
Specter had language in the bill that is before us today that would 
take a good step toward fixing the problem with appeals. In the 
committee, however, somebody offered an amendment to take it out, and 
it was taken out. This is the problem: In 4 years, there has been a 
600-percent increase in the number of appeals in immigration cases. As 
a result, we have created a large backlog. This backlog has resulted in 
the unbelievable situation by which it takes 27 months now to get a 
decision. So we have a 600-percent increase and 27 months before you 
get an appeal decision out of the courts. Some of that is getting the 
transcript ready; some of that has been delays in the court system. So 
we had a proposal to fix that. It obviously has to be fixed if we are 
going to transition from a chaotic system to a lawful system. Wouldn't 
everybody agree with that? But that was taken out.
  We are going to have to have jails and we are going to have to have 
increased Border Patrol agents and we are going to have to have 
increased barriers. This is so simple as to be without dispute, it 
seems to me. Good fences make good neighbors. Good fences make good 
neighbors, they say. When you have large numbers of people, in the 
millions, coming across--many of them coming across a specific area--a 
fence can make a huge difference. It made a huge difference in San 
Diego. I don't think anybody has breached that fence. Both sides of the 
fence now are growing and prospering terrifically. The property values 
have gone up, crime and violence and smuggling have all gone down, and 
it is so much better there. Nobody would want to take that fence down.
  So I don't understand this idea in opposition to the fencing or any 
barriers whatsoever. It is something you can't talk about. The reason 
that is so is because people want to make those who believe fencing and 
barriers are legitimate are against any immigration. They want you to 
say that there shouldn't be any immigration. But the amendment I have 
offered that would deal with expanding fences similar to what the House 
of Representatives passed by a large vote would increase substantially 
the number of legal entry points. I am not trying to keep people from 
coming lawfully or to put up a barrier that says: America doesn't allow 
immigration anymore. That is not what we are doing. We are trying to 
tilt it from an unlawful to a lawful system.
  Another thing that is very important is our local law enforcement 
officers. We have 600,000--750,000 State and local law enforcement 
officers in America. They have basically been told they should not 
contribute to the effort to deal with those who are here illegally. If 
they capture someone who is speeding or DUI or committing some other 
minor offense and they find out they are here illegally, nobody wants 
to come and get them and won't authorize the officers or encourage them 
even to participate and help. I do not believe we should mandate State 
and local officers to do anything they don't desire to do. They have 
plenty of choices to make in how they apply their resources. But if an 
officer is out doing his daily duties and he apprehends someone who is 
in this country illegally, why shouldn't the Federal Government come 
and get them? Why shouldn't they be thanked for it?
  The opposition to that indicates to me--and the nature of it and the 
kind of resistance and pushback we are getting for that--indicates to 
me that there are a large number of people who say they want law 
enforcement in America but really don't. They don't have the will to 
see this thing through and make sure the system works.
  Finally, let me tell you, it is very easy indeed for this Nation to 
get control of the workplace. This can be done and can be done very 
easily. American corporations obey the law, in general. There are some 
who don't, but most of them obey the law. What they have been told is 
they can't ask for people's identification today, they can't ask to 
find out whether they are legal or illegal, or they will be sued for 
some sort of civil rights violation, and they quit doing it. In fact, 
they are not required to do it, apparently, because they have never 
been punished for that.
  In 2004, we had only four companies that were assessed a fine for 
hiring illegal workers in this country. Only four. Isn't that amazing? 
It indicates that there has been zero enforcement, zero will to make 
sure there is a lawful process occurring at the workplace.
  What we need is clear language in our legislation and a clear 
commitment by this administration and the Department of Justice to take 
the law that we pass that clarifies all of this confusion that is out 
there and make sure there is a clear message to our businesses and, if 
they violate the law, to prosecute them or fine them. That can be done, 
and as soon as it starts being done, other businesses will clean up 
their act. They will not do it. You are not going to have to prosecute 
every company that is today hiring illegal workers because as soon as 
they know that it is not acceptable, that they will be prosecuted for 
it and fined for it, they will quit. That matter can be ended.
  T.J. Bonner, the head of the Border Patrol employees group, says you 
need two things to make this system work, and he believes it absolutely 
can work. One is increased enforcement at the border, and two is to 
eliminate what he called the ``magnet of the job.'' It is the job 
magnet that draws people across the border. Both of those can be 
eliminated very easily.
  So what do we have in our bill, the bill that is on the floor today? 
We have legislation that will place each one of the 11 million people 
here, virtually every one of them, on a direct path to citizenship. 
They say: Well, it is not automatic; they have to earn their way. They 
are supposed to work. How many hours? Well, 150 days. How much work do 
you have to do each day? Well, 1 hour. So you work 150 hours a year, 
and that qualifies you as a working person. But either way, that is 
what people come here for, to work. So what kind of earning is that? 
That is the benefit. That is why people come. That is the magnet.
  So they say that because they work, they earned the right to gain 
their complete citizenship by violating the American law, by coming 
here illegally, and then they are rewarded with every benefit this 
Nation can give them. They are rewarded with every social benefit, 
every welfare benefit, every medical care benefit, every legal 
benefit--even citizenship--rewarding them for coming in ahead of the 
line, ahead of those who stayed and waited their turn.
  So my point about that is this: Let's keep focusing on that. Let's 
figure out what the right thing to do is for these people. I am just 
saying that those who come illegally should not get every single 
benefit that those who come legally do.
  It is a myth that somehow a person here who is not a citizen is 
somehow mistreated and not appropriately treated. I had the great 
honor--and I

[[Page 4719]]

have the great honor--to know Professor Harald Rohlig at the college I 
attended. He is in his eighties. He came here from Germany right after 
World War II. He is a great organ master. He has performed and recorded 
the entire work of Bach. He is one of the most delightful people I have 
ever had the pleasure to know, and a decent person. His wife died, and 
before that, she had decided she didn't want to become a citizen. But 
he decided--he always wanted to be a citizen. He wanted to be a 
citizen. He was in his eighties. Now, here he was, the head of the 
music department, recorded the entire works of Bach, and had done so 
many other wonderful things and was loved throughout the whole area, 
but he wasn't a citizen. He came in legally and was qualified and he, 
in his eighties, decided to become a citizen. The point of that story 
is you can be a great participant in America and have many wonderful 
things available to you, even if you are not a citizen.
  My next point is this: We are moving toward one of the most historic 
and generous proimmigration pieces of legislation this Nation has ever 
had. As we study the numbers, assuming that those who qualify are only 
11 million to 12 million, we are looking at the numbers that come in 
legally on top of that--on top of the ones who come now, we are going 
to have 400,000 per year. And they are supposedly guest workers. So we 
are told there are 400,000 guest workers, but they come in for 3 years 
with the automatic ability to apply for another 3 years. It is my 
understanding that if an employer desires an alien to get a green card, 
the employer can apply on behalf of the alien almost as soon as the 
alien begins work. And for the first time we have made it so that the 
guest workers, after 4 years, can apply for a green card themselves.
  So within 4 years, anybody who comes in under this 400,000 per year, 
they will be allowed to get a green card, and a green card, of course, 
is an automatic step toward citizenship. It is just a matter of time 
after that--additionally, being able to speak English and not having 
been convicted of a felony or a serious crime--a felony.
  We need to make sure. When we go through this tremendous move to 
regularize, it is what we calculate to be 30 million people in the next 
10 years. Counting the ones who are not here now, counting the ones who 
are coming in, plus the 10 or 12 million who are here, we are talking 
about 30 million people. Are we certain? Will anyone come on this floor 
to explain and say with confidence: ``Jeff, after we do all that, don't 
worry about illegal immigration, we have the border system under 
control now; we are not going to have any''? I don't think they can. I 
don't think they will. Because it is not secure under the legislation 
that is before us.
  Second, many of the things in the legislation that are good, that 
call for increased Border Patrol officers or increased detention space, 
are not funded. We have not appropriated the money. When this 
legislation passes, which gives legal status to millions, we have no 
guarantee that any Congress will ever fund border control and security 
adequately. They have not yet. We have had that opportunity since 
1986--20 years--and we haven't done it. I believe the American people 
have a right to be concerned about the bait and switch. It is like Lucy 
holding the football for Charlie Brown: Fool me once, shame on you; 
fool me twice, shame on me.
  In 1986, I think that is basically what happened. We did the amnesty. 
We didn't mind calling it amnesty then. We acknowledged it was amnesty. 
This bill does exactly the same thing we did in 1986 in all significant 
and important respects, but they didn't get the enforcement at the 
border. Now, instead of 3 million people as we had in 1986, here 
illegally, we have 11 million.
  By the way, I would note that in 1986, they estimated this would be 1 
million to 1.5 million people claiming amnesty. When they opened it up 
and let people qualify, 3 million qualified, twice the number that was 
expected.
  Some think we have 20 million people in our country illegally, and we 
could see quite a large number there move up.
  I would say to my colleagues, we do not need to move forward with 
this legislation. A few tinkering amendments is not going to do the 
trick. What we need to do is decide what we are going to do about the 
people who are here, how we are going to handle them in a fair and just 
way that is consistent with our law. Second, we need to assure the 
American people in a confident and effective way that our borders will 
be fixed; we will have the computers, the aerial vehicles, the fencing, 
the barriers, the ability to deport people who do not live on our 
borders--so-called ``other than Mexicans,'' OTMs--to China and Brazil 
and Ecuador and Haiti and El Salvador, that we are going to deal with 
those criminal gangs which are here.
  Once we can do that with confidence, I think maybe we can reach an 
agreement and accord. It is within our grasp to do so. But I have not 
sensed the will to see it done.
  We hear a lot of talk. I urge my colleagues, my citizens, to listen 
to the remarks that are made on the floor by those who want to justify 
how we have allowed this system to get out of control. Listen carefully 
to their promises to fix it. If you examine them carefully, I think you 
will find that they are not substantial enough and we are going to end 
up, again, as we did in 1986, getting the legalization without getting 
the enforcement.
  I hope a lot of talk will continue in the days ahead. We will have a 
lot of debate on amendments on the floor, and as we move forward, I 
hope we get to the point where a bill could be passed such that we 
could go home to our constituents and with integrity say we have done 
something worthwhile--we have improved the situation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________