[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4772-4796]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT--Continued

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been advised that amendments are 
not

[[Page 4773]]

being accepted at the moment, so I will withhold it until the 
appropriate time. I ask unanimous consent to speak to the amendment so 
that my colleagues will be apprised of its contents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last December, Senator Brownback of Kansas 
and I went to Africa and went to a part of Africa I had never visited 
before. It is a part most Americans are not familiar with. It is called 
the Democratic Republic of Congo. We have known of it throughout 
history as the Congo. It is a huge expanse of country, with its capital 
of Kinshasa in the western part of the Democratic Republic of Congo, 
and then in the far eastern regions is a section of the world that has 
been hit hard time and again by devastating loss.
  In the area around Goma, in the eastern part of Congo, a few years 
ago they were hit by a volcano that left 2\1/2\ feet of lava in this 
poor town, destroying most of the buildings that were there. They have 
been victims of disease, of all of the trappings of poverty, which we 
are aware of in the continent of Africa, while at the same time there 
has been an ongoing war, which has killed so many innocent people. It 
is amazing, the resilience and the courage of the people in east Congo.
  Senator Brownback and I went there because we had heard that, with 
little fanfare in the West, 1,000 people a day were dying in this part 
of the world from all of the different events I have just noted. We 
went to a hospital in Goma, which is known as the Docs' Hospital, run 
by a Protestant church, in an effort to provide some basic health care 
in the Congo. We met with some amazing doctors who work for the 
Government of the Congo.
  Some of you who are fans of the ``Oprah'' show from Chicago may know 
she has focused on a problem they are addressing which is known as 
obstetric fistula. This is a terrible injury a woman sustains when she 
is either sexually assaulted or at too young an age goes through a 
prolonged labor before delivering a baby and has problems that can be 
very devastating to her personally. So many of the women in this region 
of the world come to this hospital in Goma in the hopes of a surgery. 
There is a very modern surgical suite there financed by the United 
Nations but very few doctors. They have one surgeon.
  I asked the doctor who was there: How many doctors do you have in 
this region of the world for the people who live here?
  He said: We have 1 doctor for each 165,000 people. One doctor.
  I said: How many surgeons?
  He said: Oh, that is hard.
  He did a quick calculation, and he said: I believe we have 1 surgeon 
for every 3 million people who live here. There is 1 surgeon for every 
3 million people.
  Imagine if we only had one surgeon for the city of Chicago. That is 
comparable in terms of numbers.
  I talked to him for a while about this challenge and the fact that 
there are not nurses and doctors and surgeons necessary to treat these 
poor people. He talked to me about some of the challenges they face, 
not just the matter of being paid by the Government, if you are lucky--
no more than $600 a month--but also the lure of the West on these 
doctors.
  We need doctors desperately in the United States. I represent a State 
with rural communities that are anxious to bring in doctors. We are not 
really that picky when it comes to their national origin. If they are 
competent, well-trained doctors, they will take them from anywhere in 
many of the small towns I represent. My State is not unlike many other 
States. But what we find here is this situation where our immigration 
laws are written in a way to attract doctors from those parts of the 
world most in need of doctors at the present time. So as Africa and 
Asia and other parts of the world deal with the global AIDS epidemic 
and terrible medical problems such as tuberculosis and malaria, the 
doctors who could successfully treat the people living there are lured 
from those low-paying jobs in desperate circumstances, with limited 
medical facilities, to the very best opportunities in the United 
States.
  I thought about that as I flew back from Africa: What is the fair 
thing to do? We need doctors in the United States, that is for sure, 
but they desperately need them in the developing parts of the world, 
and we are luring these doctors away. We are draining away this medical 
talent from a part of the world that needs it the most.
  I am going to be offering an amendment later on to this immigration 
bill, and the purpose of this amendment is twofold.
  First, it would require health care professionals and medical and 
nursing students who are applying for legal permanent residency or a 
temporary visa to attest whether they have committed to return to their 
home country. I believe that is important because if someone, for 
example, in Congo has their surgical residency--it costs about 
$50,000--paid for by the Government of the Congo with the understanding 
that they will stay and serve for a certain number of years, we should 
honor that contract. I think that Government has gone out of its way to 
provide the most basic need of every person on Earth--medical care--and 
for the United States to step in and say: We will ignore that 
commitment you made to the Government that paid for your education 
because we want you to come to the United States I believe is wrong. So 
this amendment would say that we have to honor those commitments made 
by those who said: For the cost of my education, I will work for a year 
or 2 years or 3 years in the country that paid for it. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, with this amendment, we would allow doctors and nurses who are 
legal permanent residents to return temporarily to help countries of 
citizenship or to reside in certain developing countries to work as 
health care professionals. What that means, of course, is if you are 
here in the United States as a legal permanent resident, you can return 
to a country that is desperately in need of doctors without 
jeopardizing your right to come back to the United States. So those who 
feel a special bond with their home country can go in a medical crisis, 
help the people, and then come back to the United States without 
penalty.
  These are two changes which are not massive but are important because 
they address, first, keeping your word. If you say: I will help the 
people of this country if you pay for my medical education, you should 
keep your word, and the United States should not ignore the fact that 
you have made that promise.
  Secondly, if you are here in the United States and want to return to 
help people in some of the poorest parts of our world, we should say we 
want you to do that. It is a compassionate decision on your part that 
we will honor and not penalize you for in terms of your legal residency 
here in the United States.
  I believe this amendment addresses two aspects of the problem that 
are important, but as I reflected on it, there is much more to this.
  Why is it that we bring in so many medical professionals from other 
countries around the world? The obvious answer is we are not graduating 
enough doctors, we are not graduating enough surgeons, specialists, 
nurses, health care practitioners, to meet the need in the United 
States. So in addition to keeping an eye on the needs of the world, we 
need to focus our attention as well on the needs of the United States. 
That means in the bills that we are considering relating to education 
and scholarships, assistance and encouragement, we need to put in place 
programs which will help these health care professionals complete their 
education in the United States.
  Now, what does that mean? Let me give you one illustration. I was 
born in East St. Louis, IL. I am very proud of my hometown. It was a 
blue-collar town. It has gone through some extremely tough times. Just 
2 weeks ago, I returned to East St. Louis Senior High School, which is 
six blocks from where I grew up. We met with students to talk about a 
number of things.
  A group came up to me afterward. These were six male students at East

[[Page 4774]]

St. Louis Senior High School, and they said: Senator, we want to talk 
to you about our school.
  I said: Sure. What do you want to talk about?
  They said: Why is it that at our school in East St. Louis, the 
students don't have personal computers, and yet, just up the hill in 
Belleview, they do? Why is it that in our school we don't have the 
equipment in our chemistry lab or our physics lab that we need to 
really learn these subjects, while in schools just a few miles away 
they do?
  The answer is obvious: It is the way we finance education in America. 
There are school districts that have and school districts that have not 
and, sadly, in many respects, East St. Louis is one of those school 
districts that do not have the basics when it comes to some of the 
equipment they need so their students can be well trained.
  If we are serious about having enough doctors and nurses and health 
care professionals, we have to be serious about the education we 
provide for the students across America. I believe we are falling 
dreadfully short.
  No Child Left Behind tests students across America to find out where 
they are deficient, where they are falling behind. That is a good 
thing. Kids hate to take tests; I always hated to take a test. But if 
you can't measure it, you wonder if there is real value. In this 
situation, a test at least tells you whether a student is progressing. 
Equally important, the tests are divided in schools, so it isn't just 
the average score you are reading; you will read the score for majority 
students, minority students, those who are special education students, 
those who are taking English as a second language. You may find that 
the average score is comforting, but when you break out the groups, 
there are some that need extra attention, extra help.
  The problem is that the President encouraged us to pass No Child Left 
Behind, which tests for and identifies the problem, but then the 
administration refuses to send resources to deal with it. So now we 
have school districts testing kids right and left, coming up with 
results, some of them being labeled as failing schools, and they turn 
to us and say: Well, will you give us a helping hand? You put mandates 
on us, such as treating special education students, and instead of 
providing 40 percent of the cost of that education as you promised, you 
are only providing 18 percent. And now you identify students within our 
schools who are falling behind in testing, and yet no resources come 
forward--resources for smaller classroom sizes, resources for tutoring 
and mentoring, resources for afterschool programs and summer programs.
  So if we are serious about being competitive in the 21st century, if 
we are serious about producing the health care professionals and 
engineering specialists and scientists we need to make sure we are 
competitive in this world, we must be serious about education at East 
St. Louis Senior High School and every school across America. We must 
focus our resources on America. A strong America begins at home, and it 
begins at home with our schools. It has been the ladder for generation 
after generation in America.
  As I stand here, we spend $2 billion a week on the war in Iraq. I 
voted for every penny for it. Although I voted against the resolution 
to go to war, it was my feeling that if it were my son or daughter in 
uniform, I would give them everything they needed to come home safely 
with their mission accomplished. But it is an expensive undertaking 
with no end in sight.
  We decided--the President decided--that for our national security 
purposes, we would have to shoulder this burden of $400 billion. That 
is what the war has cost us to date, approximately. I will leave here 
in a moment and go to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where we 
have been asked for another $100 billion for the war in Iraq. I am 
confident it will pass quickly with bipartisan support. But if we are 
coming down to the basics in America, we have sacrificed things we need 
in our country in order to strengthen the country of Iraq. We have put 
billions of dollars on the plate for hospitals and schools and 
infrastructure to rebuild this country, while America has fallen short 
in many of the same areas.
  So when we deal with this amendment on the future of health care in 
the world and in America, we need to focus on fairness when it comes to 
immigrants, health care professional immigrants from other countries. 
We need to create opportunities for health care professionals to help 
in other countries, but we need to focus resources in America on making 
us strong as a nation right here at home. That means strengthening our 
schools, demanding of our kids that they not only do well on tests but 
stand by them to help if they are not doing well so they can improve 
and do better on the next test, and make a commitment as a nation for 
that to happen.
  According to the World Health Organization, Africa loses 20,000 
health professionals a year. It is part of a brain-drain. The United 
States is the largest consumer of health care professionals from some 
of the poorest places in the world, followed by France, Germany, and 
Great Britain. In the United States, we deal with rural and inner-city 
health care shortages, which we need to continue to address. But we 
understand now that many nursing schools have long waiting lists of 
qualified applicants. We don't have the capacity in many of our 
schools--nursing, medical schools, and the like--so we need to expand 
that base within our own country to produce those who can teach and 
those who can learn to serve us in medical professions in the years to 
come.
  Let me give an example of another country aside from the Congo, which 
I mentioned earlier. Ethiopia has only 3 doctors for every 100,000 
people and 20 nurses; 3 for every 100,000 people. In the United States, 
we have 549 doctors for every 100,000 people and 773 nurses. Yet 
according to Ambassador Randall Tobias, who has been confirmed as the 
U.S. Director of Foreign Assistance, there are more Ethiopian-trained 
doctors in Chicago than in the country of Ethiopia.
  In the Democratic Republic of Congo, which I mentioned earlier, there 
were severe shortages of doctors and medical professionals at a time 
when those areas were desperately fighting the global AIDS epidemic. In 
Zambia, nearly a quarter of the adult population is infected with HIV/
AIDS. But Zambia has lost over 90 percent of its doctors who graduated 
from medical school in the 1980s and 1990s and emigrated out of the 
country to the West and to Europe.
  Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said:

       HIV/AIDS is not only a human tragedy of enormous magnitude, 
     it is also a threat to the stability of entire countries and 
     entire regions of the world.

  We must make certain that we have the resources available through the 
Global Fund, through our PEPFAR appropriations, as well as 
appropriations to USAID and other agencies. But we also have to make 
certain that when a country overseas that is battling disease, that is 
trying to provide the most basic health care for its citizens, is doing 
its best, we should not be luring away their health care professionals 
who promised they would stay. I think we can extend America's health 
care capacity. We can do it with a strategy that includes good 
education for our children, focusing on math, science, and critical 
languages but also making certain our professional schools can generate 
the doctors and nurses we need.
  Today, with this amendment, we would take two modest steps in the 
right direction by passing the amendment to require would-be immigrants 
to fulfill pledges of service and to offer members of the Diaspora 
community who are working here a chance to share their badly needed 
skills. Imagine living in a country with 3 doctors for every 100,000 
people. Then ask yourself what can we do about it. This amendment is a 
start.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be 
recognized as the next Democratic speaker for up to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 4775]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order is to recognize the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think the Senate had a rough kind of 
order in terms of speaking. I was told that this was the time to speak 
even in terms of other Senators. I intended to speak now. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator be recognized after I finish.
  Does that help the Senator?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, how long will 
he speak?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Probably 20 minutes.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Would the Senator mind if I went for maybe 2 or 3 
minutes?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, to be fair, realizing that there will be 
objection to laying down amendments, I would speak maybe 2 or 3 minutes 
total.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, at the end of my remarks, I will ask to 
lay the pending business aside. Let me speak for a moment on the issue 
of immigration.
  We are dealing with one of the most difficult issues that we will 
consider this year. It is difficult from a political standpoint, and it 
is difficult from a policy standpoint.
  If we could poll all 100 Senators, we would probably have 100 
different ways of solving the problem of illegal immigration.
  However, I think we can all agree that we need to secure our borders. 
This should be our number one priority, and our national security 
depends on it. Then, we can begin to consider other reforms.
  I, personally, believe it is important that we first secure all of 
our borders, including our Southern border, our Northern border, and 
our ports. Once we have secured our borders, as part of a comprehensive 
reform effort, we can then consider a temporary worker program. This 
program should require the worker to be continuously employed. It 
should also ensure that workers are contributing members of society, 
and are working to become proficient in English. In addition, this 
program should encourage the worker to have health care coverage.
  I have drafted several amendments that are different from the current 
underlying bill. It is important that these amendments and other 
legislative proposals be considered for debate.
  It is unfortunate that the other side is blocking the amendment 
process on the bill. They don't want to take some tough votes. I 
understand that. However, immigration reform is a critical issue facing 
our country. We must have a full debate in the Senate, which includes 
an opportunity to bring up amendments, have votes on them, and then 
determine how to proceed. I, and many of my colleagues, have several 
amendments that I believe will be very constructive to this process.
  Many of us want a verifiable database from which employers can search 
for the legal work status of their employees. It may be several years 
before we can actually have that database up and running. The technical 
problems associated with the database are not addressed in the current 
underlying bill. I believe some of my colleagues have offered an 
amendment to address this important issue, and I believe my colleagues 
should be heard.
  We also have to look at Social Security. Two of my amendments address 
serious issues related to Social Security.
  In order to qualify for full Social Security retirement benefits, a 
worker must work a minimum of 10 years. Under current law, individuals 
who work in the United States illegally, and later obtain legal 
employment status, can use their illegal work history to qualify for 
benefits.
  The promise of Social Security is for citizens and legal residents of 
the United States. It was not intended for individuals who enter our 
country illegally, purchase fraudulent green cards and documentation on 
the black market, and use them to get jobs. At a time when the solvency 
of our Social Security system is in question, it is wrong to allow 
those who have broken our laws to receive credit for their illegal work 
history.
  In addition, I have serious concerns about the proposed Totalization 
Agreement with Mexico and its impact on the Social Security Trust Fund. 
The effects of the Totalization Agreement depend on the specific terms 
and language included in the agreement. We do not know the terms of the 
agreement and will not know the exact terms until the President submits 
the agreement to Congress. We also don't know the exact cost of a 
Totalization Agreement with Mexico. I am concerned that if this 
agreement were to go into effect, it could severely impact the Social 
Security Trust Fund and threaten the retirement benefits of hard-
working Americans. This issue needs to be addressed in the context of 
this debate.
  I believe there are many technical problems with this bill that must 
be debated on the Senate floor. These issues should be addressed out in 
the open so that the American people can see what is being discussed. 
Unfortunately, this process is not going forward because the amendment 
process is being blocked.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside, 
and that I would be allowed to offer an amendment at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, in closing, I realize that there are many 
differences in this chamber. Both Republicans and Democrats have 
different views on various aspects of this legislation. I believe it is 
absolutely critical that we move this process forward, that we allow 
for full debate on the Senate floor, and that we allow amendments to be 
debated and voted on.
  I encourage my colleagues to think about how we proceed, as this is a 
critical issue facing our country.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for 
yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. From my own personal 
experience, the Senator has been very much involved and engaged in the 
provisions of the legislation--and has been during the consideration 
that we had in the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. President, I remind Members about where we are at the present 
time with the proposal passed out of the Judiciary Committee 12 to 6, 
bipartisan.
  We had some 6 days of markups. We considered hundreds of different 
amendments. I was looking over a number of the amendments that had been 
considered and offered. There may be a few that weren't, but just about 
all of those were considered at one time or another before the 
Judiciary Committee. We held 7 days of hearings, listened to all 
different individuals who had a variety of different opinions on a wide 
variety of different subjects.
  The basic legislation that we are considering here, in one form or 
another, has been out there for more than 2\1/2\ years prior to the 
2004 election. I introduced legislation that had a number of parts of 
this legislation. Senator McCain introduced legislation, and Senator 
Daschle and Senator Hagel worked together.
  After the elections in 2004-2005, Senator McCain and I worked 
together in May of 2005 and presented this legislation.
  This issue has been before both our committee with extensive 
hearings. We had a markup as a result of the action of the chairman of 
our committee. We had the opportunity to take some action on this.

[[Page 4776]]

  I know there are those who would like to discuss this and discuss and 
continue to discuss. Sometimes this institution has to take action. I 
am very hopeful we will be able to do that in these next couple of 
days.
  Some Senators have tried to frame the debate on immigration between 
the Judiciary Committee bill and Senator Frist's bill as a debate 
between those who would be tough on enforcement and those who would 
not.
  We all recognize that our current immigration enforcement system is 
broken. Enforcement provisions is an area where a good deal of 
consensus has already emerged in this Chamber.
  Both bills under consideration would enhance our capacity to monitor 
the immigration flows and stop illegal entry. They would double the 
number of Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years; add significant 
new technology at the border to create a ``virtual fence''; develop new 
land and water surveillance plans; authorize new highway checkpoints 
near the border; and expand the exit-entry security system to all land 
borders and airports.
  Both bills would increase our capacity to crack down on criminal 
syndicates that smuggle immigrants into the country and place them at 
great risk. They would create new criminal penalties for evading or 
refusing to obey commands of immigration officers and new criminal 
penalties for financial transactions involving money laundering or 
smuggling. They would create new fraudproof biometric immigration 
documents; direct increased resources to antifraud detection; and 
improve coordination among Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies 
to combat alien smuggling.
  Both bills would increase cooperation with Mexico to strengthen that 
country's southern border to prevent illegal migration from Central 
America through Mexico into the United States. Both bills would 
facilitate cooperation with other governments in the region to prevent 
international gang activity.
  In addition, both bills would reduce the job magnet in America by 
creating a universal electronic eligibility verifi-
cation system so that employers can determine whether potential 
employees are authorized to work in the United States--very important. 
That does not exist today, and it is the basis of a great deal of the 
abuse that currently exists. It is one of the principal reasons the 
1986 act was a failure.
  They had a provision to adjust the status of amnesty in 1986, but 
there would also be the requirement for ensuring that we were going to 
have the vigorous enforcement. It never happened, never existed because 
we were unable to develop the kind of verifi-
cation that is so important. We do that under this legislation.
  Both bills will substantially increase the penalties on employers 
that fail to comply with eligibility verification rules. And both bills 
will add 5,000 new enforcement agents to back up these provisions. We 
have had virtually no enforcement whatsoever. That has existed under 
Republican and Democratic administrations. But under this legislation, 
we will.
  The Frist bill places greater emphasis on border fencing, a method of 
immigration control which we believe has proven ineffective over the 
last 10 years. The Judiciary Committee bill imposes new penalties on 
individuals who construct, finance, or use unlawful tunnels under the 
border. We believe this approach is important for enforcement. Senator 
Feinstein has said these tunnels are one of the various methods 
immigrants now use to circumvent border fencing.
  The real difference between these two bills involves what we do in 
addition--in addition--to these tough, new enforcement measures. Over 
the last week, we have heard two very different answers to this 
question, reflecting fundamentally different views of immigrants and 
the steps we should take to reform.
  The Frist bill follows the lead of the House of Representatives. It 
treats immigrants as criminals. In fact, the Frist bill declares that 
all undocumented immigrants are criminals. It goes further than that, 
actually making it a felony to provide undocumented immigrants with 
nonemer-
gency humanitarian assistance.
  In bipartisan votes, two-thirds of the members of the Judiciary 
Committee rejected these measures because they conflict with our basic 
values, and they would do nothing to actually reduce the number of 
undocumented immigrants in this country. This is one reason why at 
least 184 religious groups support comprehensive reform with a path 
toward permanent status instead.
  This is what they call the Cardinal Mahony provision, where Cardinal 
Mahony says his challenge is to deal with and help the poor, not to 
check their immigration status. When a mother consults and asks the 
cardinal, ``My child is sick. Should I be going outside the country and 
returning to Mexico?'' and Cardinal Mahony would say, ``Your 
responsibility is to your child,'' that is aiding and abetting someone 
from returning to Mexico, and under the House bill they would be guilty 
of a felony. We are doing that for those who are members of the clergy, 
humanitarian organizations, nonprofit organizations. It is absolutely 
wrong. As Cardinal Mahony said, it is the most vicious piece of 
legislation he has ever seen.
  So our bill is not just tough on immigration enforcement; it also 
takes the necessary steps to make enforcement effective. We have tried 
enforcement, and what we have seen over the last 10 years is how it has 
failed.
  Ten years ago, there were 40,000 illegal immigrants who were coming 
into the United States. Now there are more than 400,000. We have spent 
$20 billion. We have increased border guards 300 percent over that 
period of time. We have created 66 miles of fencing along the border in 
the South. We have 1,800 miles to go along the Mexican border, 4,200 
miles to go along the Canadian border on this.
  We have to try. This has been a bankrupt policy. And to try to just 
do enforcement--enforcement only--is not going to work. How many more 
billions of dollars do we have to spend?
  Our program is so much more efficient. The reason why is, we give 
focus and attention to those who are the troublemakers, the criminals, 
and those who are going to be dangerous to Americans.
  The Border Patrol will be targeted in using its resources on those 
who are a danger to the United States, not chasing gardeners around the 
desert in the Southwest, which is happening now. That is a very major 
difference.
  People who talk about national security understand this. That is why 
Secretary Chertoff testified we needed a comprehensive approach. That 
is an understanding. We understand this is a national security issue. 
As well as preserving and protecting our borders, it is a national 
security issue. We understand that. We have taken the steps in our 
enforcement provisions to make sure that is the case.
  It is also dealing with our whole march toward progress in terms of 
opening up economic opportunity. And most importantly, I think it is a 
value issue about how we are going to treat individuals who work hard, 
love their family, play by the rules, pay their taxes, want to study 
English, want to be good citizens, and in many instances enlist in the 
military forces--70,000 of them over in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the 
service. Many are serving in Afghanistan.
  That is the profile. That is generally the profile of what we like 
for our fellow Americans. Ninety-eight percent of the undocumented male 
workers are working today in the United States of America. These are 
hard-working people, trying to provide for their families.
  It is interesting, to divert for a minute, the incidents, for 
example, of families staying together is much higher among those groups 
than the native population. There is a greater expenditure in education 
as to their children than among the native population, a much greater 
expenditure in terms of music and the arts as compared to the native 
population, a much greater evidence of attendance to church and 
religion as compared to the native population.
  These are hard-working individuals who want to play by the rules. 
Under

[[Page 4777]]

our particular legislation, they have to conform to the rules or they 
are out, and they have to do it for 11 years before they become a 
citizen--11 years--without running into any trouble, paying their taxes 
and doing what needs to be done. That is what is in our effort.
  First, we strengthen the enforcement at the border and within the 
United States. We all agree with that point.
  Second, we provide a path to legal status which will bring the 11 
million undocumented immigrants already within the United States out of 
the shadows, and disrupt the culture of illegality which now corrodes 
our system.
  Third, we must provide legal channels for future immigration flows so 
that U.S. employers who are unable to attract native workers are not 
tempted to hire illegal immigrants. And those procedures are outlined.
  I have heard many speak about the guest worker program, and they have 
not read the bill. For the most part, they have to advertise in the 
United States in their area or region in terms of the worker, and then 
the individual who is selected has to meet all of the other various 
criminal background checks, other kinds of security checks.
  They come to the United States, and rather than being exploited--as 
the workforce is today--as an undocumented, they are guaranteed the 
worker protections in the legislation in terms of prevailing wage, 
Davis-Bacon, other provisions, service contract provisions.
  So rather than depressing wages--as exists today, and without this 
legislation will continue--this elevates them. That is enormously 
important.
  I want to mention a particular provision in our bill that is 
extremely important; that is, the Judiciary Committee took the long 
overdue step of enacting what we call the DREAM Act. Under the DREAM 
Act, undocumented immigrant children would be given an opportunity to 
become American citizens if they can prove good moral character, if 
they have graduated from high school, and if they go on to college or 
join the military.
  Many of my constituents in Massachusetts are undocumented children 
who would benefit from this act. I wish to share three of their 
stories, provided by the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy 
Coalition:
  Mario has lived in Chelsea, MA, for the past 7 years. He is a stellar 
student, patient caretaker for his 4-year-old brother, and a leader in 
the community. Mario is currently facing deportation. In Mario's own 
words:

       I did not make the choice to come to this country; however, 
     over time this country has become my home. My time in the 
     U.S. has consisted of nothing but hard work and positive 
     service to the community and all I want is for that to 
     continue. I see this country as my home, and I have always 
     striven to do the right thing. I know that I have a lot to 
     offer this country if I am only given the chance to do so.

  Jessica was brought to this country when she was 3 years old, 
originally from the Dominican Republic. She graduated last year with 
honors from Madison Park High School in Boston but was unable to pursue 
her dream of studying psychology because of her status. Jessica was a 
member of the National Honor Society and an officer in the Marine 
JROTC. Jessica says going to college is the only way for her to secure 
a better future for herself and her family. The United States is the 
only country she has ever known.
  Flavio graduated last year from the Burke High School in Dorchester. 
He made a complete turnaround from 9th grade to his sophomore year--he 
turned Ds and Fs into all As and Bs. When asked about his amazing 
turnaround, he responds that his mother sent him to this country to do 
something with his life and that is what he decided to do. He is a 
member of the National Honor Society, honor roll, captain of the track 
and soccer teams. He was accepted at Roxbury Community College but was 
not able to attend because of lack of access to financial aid or 
scholarships. Flavio's parents sent him to the U.S. at the young age of 
11, hoping he would have a better life here than in Cape Verde.
  These kids aspire to U.S. citizenship, and America benefits when they 
have a chance to earn it.
  The Judiciary Committee bill includes enhanced enforcement, earned 
legalization for those who are here, and a realistic guest worker 
program for the future. This is a real comprehensive plan for repairing 
our broken immigration system, and it is not a campaign slogan.
  First, many of those who oppose real comprehensive reform have 
mischar-
acterized our arguments in recent days, and they have introduced a 
number of amendments which would undermine our reform efforts. So let 
me set the record straight.
  First, let me set the record straight on amnesty. Our bill does not 
provide undocumented immigrants with amnesty. Amnesty, by definition, 
is an automatic pardon or free pass granted to a group of individuals 
without requiring any actions in return.
  Mr. President, I understand I only have 5 minutes left, 4\1/2\ 
minutes. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator has 13 minutes left.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thirteen.
  Well, in any event, let me go through very quickly the earned 
legalization requirements.
  First, you must have entered and continuously resided in the U.S. 
before January 2004; must remain continuously employed; must pay $2,000 
in penalties; must pass security background checks; must pass a medical 
exam; must learn English; must learn U.S. history and government; must 
pay all back taxes; must get to the back of the line behind all 
applicants waiting for green cards; and, after obtaining a green card, 
must wait another 5 years before becoming eligible to apply for 
naturalization.
  There it is. Amnesty means pardon and forgiveness. This is what they 
have to do.
  They have to continue to earn for 11 years. That is the fastest you 
can gain it, 11 years. And you have to earn it every day by not only 
paying your penalties but meeting the security checks, learning English 
and history, paying all of the taxes. That is what is included. That is 
why many of us who are supporters of it resent, quite frankly, the 
distortion and misrepresentation that has been made on the floor. I 
have listened to it. Here in this Chamber people have mischaracterized 
our legislation, and then they differ with it.
  It is interesting because so many of our Republican friends have been 
able to understand the legislation. George Will understands this. Brit 
Hume, who is a commentator on FOX, certainly understands it. He spelled 
it out. Bill Kristol, who is a conservative spokesman, understands it. 
He actually supports it. The list goes on. They understand what this is 
about. That is why it is troublesome when we hear some of our 
colleagues on the other side repeatedly misstate what this is about. I 
can understand if you state correctly what it is about and you differ 
with it. I will differ with you, but I can understand and respect it. 
But what is happening is a complete distortion and misrepresentation as 
to what we have.
  On law enforcement, this is the language from the legislation: The 
requirement to eliminate the visa backlog. If the backlog of 
applications for family-based and employer-based immigrant visas is not 
eliminated within the 6 years following the date of enactment, as 
predicted under the formula set out in title V, the amendments made by 
the title, the Secretary shall hold in abeyance an application--that 
means you go to the end of the line--submitted by an alien granted 
conditional nonimmigrant work authorization.
  Those are the two aspects of it: the one that sets out the 
requirements of what an individual is going to have to do in 11 years 
and this provision in the legislation that says they will go 
effectively to the back of the line. That is how we deal with the 11 
million individuals who are here. I have listened a little bit to the 
arguments against this provision, but what we have not heard is what 
the other side is for.
  You are against our provision. What are you for? Are you for 
deportation? Where is your $240 billion--that is the best estimate--to 
move these individuals out? Who are they? They are the

[[Page 4778]]

parents of American citizens, in many instances, disrupting families, 
disrupting relationships that have been going on for years. It would 
take the buses to go from San Diego to Anchorage, AK, bumper to bumper, 
if we were to deport 11 million people at $240 billion.
  They are all so eloquent, those who differ with us. But you never 
hear what they are for. They just happen to be against this provision 
which is an essential part of this whole effort. That is something 
which is important.
  I see my friend and colleague here who wants to address the issue. I 
have other comments, but I will come back a little later in the 
afternoon and address them. I hope we can move along. I know there are 
a number of amendments that have been examined and are acceptable. I 
hope we move those along. I hope we move to a point where we can have 
some votes and make a determination on the judgment of this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say about my colleague, the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts, that in the 44 years he has been here, he 
has been one of the Senate's--the Senate's, probably--leading 
spokespeople for a fair, sensible, value-based approach to immigration. 
I have been here for a couple of the fights on immigration we have had, 
having come to the Senate in 1985. But I have never seen somebody as 
careful and as deliberative and as thoughtful about how to balance the 
equities that are involved in this issue and, most importantly, 
somebody who never forgets what defines this country. It is not just 
immigrants who understand what Senator Kennedy has been fighting for. 
It is those who really understand, such as the people Senator Kennedy 
was talking about--Bill Kristol, George Will and others, conservatives 
who understand the values as well as the pragmatic issues which define 
this question of immigration. So I thank my colleague for his many 
years of leadership on this and for the experience which he brings to 
the debate.
  Obviously, this debate matters enormously to our country. There is no 
doubt that Americans in every State in the Union and people around the 
world are watching what we do and how we do it. We have witnessed a 
remarkable demonstration of public protest and of civic participation 
in cities across America. In the Senate, in our communities, we are 
once again wrestling with difficult issues. These are not easy. Nobody 
is suggesting they are easy. But the question of immigration reform is 
an issue that goes to the heart of who we are as a people and that 
defines us as a nation. It is an issue that has historically divided 
us, revealing that sometimes humanity and courage are side by side with 
isolationism and fear and sometimes, sadly, even bigotry.
  We may be divided today, as we try to figure out how we are going to 
go forward here, but I don't think there is any Senator who disagrees 
about our past and our heritage as a nation of immigrants, of people 
who have come to the United States in search of a better life and 
freedom, of opportunity, and who want to have their voices heard. We 
also all agree that our current immigration system is broken. We agree 
that more resources have to be sent to the border in order to 
strengthen enforcement, to add more Border Patrol agents, and invest in 
new technologies.
  I spent a number of years as a prosecutor. I didn't have to deal 
directly with immigration at the county level, but I certainly saw what 
a lack of resources did, in a prosecutor's office, to our ability to 
pick the crimes that we were prosecuting, our ability to prioritize 
certain kinds of crimes to move through the judicial system. The fact 
is, had it not been back in those days for an extraordinary infusion of 
Federal dollars through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 
we never could have done half the things we did--like priority 
prosecution so you could take any felony from arrest to conviction in 
90 days, Federal money made that difference; where we could have a rape 
counseling unit, one of the first in the country, Federal money made 
that difference; where we could have a victim witness assistance 
program so people would be helped through the criminal justice system, 
Federal money made that difference.
  Here we are with less border guards on our 2,000-mile border than we 
have police officers in the City of New York. They don't have the 
resources. So as we stand here and debate this issue in the Senate, we 
need to be honest about our own responsibility for the situation we 
find ourselves in today. This is not something a Republican President 
did or a Democratic President did or a Republican Congress/Democratic 
Congress. It is something the United States has allowed to take shape 
over the last 30, 40, 50 years. It is not new. And you can't come in 
and sort of bring down a wall and say: OK, we are going to do 
enforcement and forget about the magnet that already exists, the 
inequities that have already been put in place because a whole bunch of 
people knew the borders were porous, because a whole bunch of people 
knew employers would hire them if they came here illegally which, 
incidentally, is against the law. But where are the prosecutors 
prosecuting that in the past? It hasn't been happening.
  So our system is broken. What we need to do, consistent with our 
values and history as a country that has welcomed and honored 
immigrants, is to deal with the current situation in a realistic, open, 
fairminded way that tries to find the common ground between us.
  I believe we can do that, but it is a problem we have to think about 
from both sides. I have spent some time in the last months, knowing 
this debate was going to take place, meeting with members of the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus and trying to understand how people are 
thinking about this. How does somebody who has come into the country, 
who has been here for 15 years, 20 years, who has raised their kids, 
whose kids have friends, who has gone to the local school, who is going 
to college now, how do they see this? How do we all see this?
  We have 11 million, approximately, undocumented immigrants living and 
working in the United States. The Nation's employers want these people, 
evidently, because they are hiring them. It is against the law to hire 
them, but they are hiring them. How many Americans have gone down to a 
street corner and hired somebody or had somebody mow the lawn or 
somebody come over to the house to clean out the garage or do something 
and paid them cash?
  The fact is, there are low-skilled, low-wage jobs that a whole bunch 
of Americans don't want to necessarily fill. I know during the 1990s, 
we reached an unemployment level of about 2 percent plus in 
Massachusetts. I believe it was around 4 percent as a nation, 
effectively full employment in the United States. Still there were a 
whole bunch of low-wage jobs people didn't want to do. There simply 
aren't enough visas for the people who want to come in to do those jobs 
and for the jobs that people want to have done to fill. And with the 
lure of higher paying jobs than in their home countries, workers come 
in to fill them. That is a centuries-old reality, not just here but in 
countries all around the world.
  The system that employers are supposed to use to verify the legal 
status of employees is fundamentally weak. It is subject to 
exploitation by everybody. The workers can exploit it by getting false 
documents, and the employers can exploit it by ignoring documents that 
they know are false or by avoiding the requirement to comply with the 
law.
  Our challenge here in the Senate is not to demagog this issue. It is 
not to say: Boy, if we just enforced the border, that is the whole 
deal.
  It is not the whole deal. Everybody who has thought about this issue 
in any serious way knows that is not the whole deal. If we are going to 
deal with 11 million undocumented workers who are currently living in 
the shadows in America and be fair to our history and our values, we 
have to create a comprehensive reform program. Some people on the other 
side of the aisle suggest all we have to do is shut down the

[[Page 4779]]

border and that is it, just shut the border. They believe the 
approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living and 
working in America are going to return home. Are they serious? People 
who have a job, paid their dues, paid their taxes, didn't get in 
trouble, kids are in high school about to graduate or in college, they 
are going to pack up and go home? Back to what?
  For those who won't leave voluntarily, these people believe we are 
going to have all our police officers and everybody go out and find 
them and round them up and deport them. How would you do that? How do 
you find 11 million people who are living in the shadows? How are you 
going to compel them to leave? What are you going to say to their 
children and grandchildren and the businesses and the communities that 
depend on them? What is the image going to be around the world? You can 
see the cartoons as the United States is busy rounding up these folks, 
herding them into buses, sending them back.
  George Will summed this up pretty well in his column last week. He 
wrote:

       Of the nation's illegal immigrants--estimated to be at 
     least 11 million, a cohort larger than the combined 
     populations of 12 States--60 percent have been here at least 
     five years. Most have roots in their communities. Their 
     children born here are U.S. citizens.

  Those children, because they were born in the United States, are U.S. 
citizens; that is what our Constitution says. So are we going to 
separate parents and grandparents from American citizen children?

       We are not going to take the draconian police measures 
     necessary to deport 11 million people. They would fill 
     200,000 buses in a caravan stretching bumper-to-bumper from 
     San Diego to Alaska--where, by the way, 26,000 Latinos live. 
     And there are no plausible incentives to get 11 million to 
     board the buses.

  That is what George Will said.
  Mr. President, offering up border enforcement as a panacea is a great 
political talking point. You can go out, and there are places where 
people will stomp their feet and clap their hands and say: Isn't that 
true? But it is not a real strategy, it is not a way to fix our broken 
immigration system.
  I am also troubled by the anti-immigrant statements made during this 
debate, which expose a limited understanding of the role of immigrants 
and immigrant workers and the role that they play in the fabric of our 
economy and our society and our communities. Most troubling is, I 
think, that these statements are statements that are made to try to 
divide people. For example, arguing against the need for immigrant 
labor, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said:

       Let the prisoners pick the fruits. We can do it without 
     bringing in millions of foreigners.

  According to Congressman Bob Beauprez:

       If we continue down this path that the Senate has 
     established, . . . we will have created the biggest magnet 
     ever. It would be like a dinner bell, ``come one, come all.''

  Congressman Steve King says that anyone who supports a guest worker 
proposal should be ``branded with a scarlet letter A,'' for 
``amnesty.''
  Congressman Tom Tancredo wants to turn America into a gated 
community, warning people that among the people crossing our borders 
are ``people coming to kill me and you and your children.'' He laments 
the ``cult of multiculturalism'' and worries that America is becoming a 
``Tower of Babel.''
  I would like Tom Tancredo to go over to Iraq, where there are 70,000 
legal immigrants serving this country, and ask them how they feel about 
a ``Tower of Babel'' and about the values of this country.
  These statements do not reflect the contribution that immigrants have 
made to our country over centuries. They don't reflect the 
contributions that they make today. Most of us in this country--almost 
all of us in this country descend from immigrants. That is who we are. 
I am privileged to be married to an immigrant, who didn't become an 
American citizen until, I think, she was 24 or 25 years old.
  I know how loyal people can become to a country that welcomes them 
and gives them the ability to fulfill the American dream. The vast 
majority of the American people understand the value that immigrants 
provide to our country. They understand that enforcement alone is not 
going to work, and they have taken to the streets to make their voices 
heard. Half a million people demonstrated in Los Angeles to protest an 
enforcement-only approach to immigration reform, far surpassing the 
number of people who protested the Vietnam war. More than 10,000 people 
participated in the ``Day Without Latinos'' rally in Milwaukee, WI, 
leaving their jobs and marching through downtown. Similar walkouts 
occurred in other parts of the country with students and laborers 
protesting enforcement-only immigration proposals such as the House 
bill. Churches and humanitarian organizations have become actively 
involved in the fight for comprehensive immigration reform. In fact, 
yesterday I spoke with Hispanic evangelical leaders from across the 
country about their concerns regarding the immigration crisis in our 
country. Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the archbishop of Los Angeles, has 
spearheaded an effort by the Roman Catholic Church to defy the House 
bill that criminalizes immigrants and the organizations that help those 
immigrants.
  You heard my colleague, Senator Kennedy, talk about what would happen 
if somebody reaches out to the poor, the needy, the sick, which is a 
fundamental tenet of any religion. And this bill in the House wants to 
criminalize that.
  The people are making their voices heard. They understand what is at 
stake in this debate. They understand the role that immigrants play in 
this country, and they are fighting to ensure that we end up with a 
fair humanitarian, realistic solution. Now, while some people look at 
enforcement only--incidentally, let me say that during the election of 
2004, I spoke up as forcefully as I could in New Mexico, Arizona, 
Colorado, and lots of places where there are lots of immigrants. I 
consistently said that you have to have comprehensive reform. I didn't 
just talk about earned legalization or about guest workers; I talked 
about the need to crack down on businesses that are illegally hiring 
people. We need to have a simple and honest way for people to know who 
is applying for work.
  This is common sense, particularly in a post-9/11 world, where it is 
important for American security to know who is coming into our country. 
So we need to do that. You cannot look at enforcement-only but rather 
the comprehensive bill like that which is being considered on the floor 
of the Senate. I am encouraged by what the Judiciary Committee, in a 
bipartisan bill, did, which is now a full substitute to Senator Frist's 
bill, and that is the bill offered by Senator Specter.
  As Senator Kennedy and others have said, the Specter amendment has 
the four cornerstones of real immigration reform. You cannot do it 
without all four. No. 1, you have to have a strengthening of our border 
enforcement. That means using all of the latest technology to build a 
virtual fence--use the sensors that we have available in the military, 
use the cameras and technology, and use more human presence to add to 
the Border Patrol that is currently there; make sure enough vehicles 
are there, which is an amendment I intend to offer if we get into the 
substantive part of the debate. It has been much neglected through the 
years by all in strengthening the border.
  Second, regulate visas in order to meet the work flow needs. And you 
have to do it in a more effective way than we have in the past.
  Third, you have to provide a path for legalization for people who 
have been here for a long period of time, played by the rules, raised 
their families, and have children who are American citizens. We need to 
find a way to do that so that it is not, as some of our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle say, opening the door and making a fool of 
the law. I am not for doing that. The law has to mean something.
  Indeed, in this bill, from 2004 forward, there is no eligibility for 
people to

[[Page 4780]]

have earned legalization. It shuts the door after 2004. It brings down 
a wall but in a comprehensive way that has a starting point that says: 
OK, we acknowledge that for a long period of time we didn't have a 
realistic system, we were not able to stop people from coming in. What 
is the fairest way to deal with this problem, to send notice in the 
future that this is a new get-tough policy in the United States and a 
policy that will be backed up by adequate border security, by a 
realistic visa program that commands respect of people, and by a 
legitimate effort to bring people out of the shadows, which also 
commands the respect of people everywhere.
  Finally, we need to help employers enforce our laws. You have to have 
a way for the employer not to be turned into a police officer but to 
easily, and with certainty, be able to determine whether the documents 
they are looking at are real and whether the person they are looking 
at, presenting the documents, is the person that it purports to be.
  Mr. President, the Specter amendment is tough on border security. It 
is important because this debate has gone on as if there is a bill out 
there that is for border security--the Frist bill and the House bill--
and this other bill that somehow is not. That is not accurate. The 
Specter amendment is tough on enforcement and border security. Almost 
every provision of the other bill--the Frist bill--is in there. And it 
is unfair to assume that it doesn't have strong enforcement provisions.
  The Specter substitute doubles the size of the Border Patrol by 
adding 12,000 new agents over the next 5 years. It doubles interior 
enforcement by adding 5,000 investigators over the next 5 years. It 
adds new technology at the border to create the virtual fence that I 
talked about. It expands the exit and the entry system at all land and 
airports. It mandates a new land and water surveillance plan, and it 
increases the criminal penalties for violating our immigration laws.
  That is a tough bill with tough enforcement. It also addresses the 
reason that undocumented workers come to this country. They come to 
this country looking for jobs, and the demand for labor in our country 
is one of the things that pulls them here. So workers cross the border 
because we don't have enough visas to be able to permit people to cross 
legally, so they come illegally. Guess what. They get a job when they 
get here. That is illegal.
  One of the key elements to stopping the illegal flow of workers 
across the border is to increase the number of visas for people to come 
legally and also to have an adequate ability for the employer to have 
no excuse for not knowing the legality of the people who work with 
them. There should be a no-fault system here, where there is an 
automatic presumption of the employer's ability to enforce.
  The temporary worker program that is created by the Specter 
substitute, in my judgment, will help to regularize the flow of 
immigrant workers in and out of this country. I understand some people 
fear allowing temporary workers into the United States. They think it 
will hurt American workers and depress their wages. Again, that is a 
phony ``bogeyman.'' That is a red herring in this debate. Either people 
have not read the temporary worker program or they chose to allow 
themselves to be completely misled by it.
  The temporary program has labor protections and it has market wage 
requirements. The worker has to receive at least the same wage as 
someone similarly situated or at the prevailing wage level for that 
job, whichever is greater. So there is a wage enforcement mechanism 
that will not allow that depression.
  The workers will receive a 3-year visa, reviewable for 3 years, and 
have the ability to curb employer abuse by switching jobs. And in 
addition, after working 4 years, they can petition for a green card. So 
the temporary worker program meets the labor needs of employers while 
at the same time remaining flexible enough to accommodate changes in 
the marketplace.
  Equally important is reducing the backlog of people who are waiting 
for visas. Mr. President, 260,000 new family visas and 150,000 new 
employment visas will be added each year. Thirty percent of the 
employment visa pool will be reserved for essential workers. And 
perhaps most importantly, those currently waiting for visas will be 
processed before any of the current undocumented workers.
  This is critical. When people talk about this somehow being an 
amnesty, they are completely ignoring the 10 steps you have to go 
through--the last of which is the most important of all--that you go to 
the end of the line. You don't somehow get a free pass card that 
automatically puts you in; you go to the end of the line.
  So the numbers of documented people are already there ahead of those 
who are undocumented; and if you are coming in undocumented, you not 
only have to learn English, have a health exam, and have a security 
background check, and you not only have to be legitimately employed and 
all these things, but you also go to the end of the line. That is not 
an amnesty.
  The Judiciary Committee bill also provides a realistic way to deal 
with the 11 million undocumented workers who are already here. Senator 
Kennedy went through those 10 different steps. I will not repeat them 
now, except to emphasize the last point I made about the back of the 
line.
  I think those are pretty onerous burdens. They are tough burdens. 
They require all back taxes to be paid--tough burdens. It is not 
forgive and forget. It is meet a standard. It is live up to a standard.
  The final piece of the immigration reform puzzle is how do we create 
a workable employer verification system. We don't want to, but we need 
to, unfortunately, rely on employers to be part of the system. We don't 
want to turn them into immigration bureaucrats. We don't want to turn 
them into police officers, but it is inevitable if we are going to have 
a legitimate comprehensive system that when somebody presents 
credentials to an employer, the employer can't cheat, the employer 
can't look for a way around it.
  The employer has to be part of this system of the values of America 
that say there are people waiting in line, there are people going 
through the visa system. We are spending money on the border. We need 
you to be part of this system. It is going to take an educational 
effort by chambers of commerce and small business associations and 
other efforts around the country so that there is an ethic in America 
that is not willing to cheat. And if that ethic was put in place, we 
would do more to stop illegal immigration than any other single item 
because people won't be able to find the work. I personally think it is 
the single most important part, together with the Border Patrol 
component itself, of having a comprehensive immigration program.
  Currently, however, employers don't have a reliable system for 
checking the validity of Social Security numbers, and we know how many 
Social Security numbers have been stolen. We have a problem for all 
Americans with the theft of Social Security numbers. So we need to deal 
with that problem even as we deal with this question of verification of 
employees.
  The Specter substitute creates a system that will enable employers to 
quickly and accurately verify a potential employee's legal status. The 
last immigration reform we passed in 1986 was intended to address the 
root causes of illegal workers coming across to the United States, but 
it failed to draw all the illegal workers out of the shadows, and that 
really has helped lay the groundwork to people's cynicism and 
skepticism, which I understand, about today's system.
  The reason we are in the crisis we are in today is because we have 
never really been comprehensive. That is the problem. I believe the 
Specter substitute amendment that the Judiciary Committee worked so 
hard to create and pass in a bipartisan fashion does not make the same 
mistake that was made in 1986.
  There is one other aspect of the bill I would like to mention before 
yielding the floor. I have supported for many years the DREAM Act. The 
DREAM Act will enable young people who have

[[Page 4781]]

spent most of their lives in the United States, who believe in our 
country and have stayed out of trouble, to have a chance to get a crack 
at higher education, which is essential. It gives incredibly bright and 
capable young people a real chance at success, and it gives our country 
well-educated, hard-working citizens. I think including the DREAM Act 
in comprehensive immigration reform makes sense, and I am pleased the 
Judiciary Committee, led by the efforts of Senator Durbin, included it.
  There are a number of amendments--I am not going to go into all of 
them now--but there are a number of amendments on Border Patrol, making 
sure the Border Patrol agents have sufficient tools, GPS, other items. 
Also, I want to eliminate the ability of the administration to have a 
completely unreviewable authority to make the full decision on an 
individual's life. The Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney 
General, and consular officials who currently have the sole and final 
authority really will have an undue impact on detention, deportation, 
citizenship determinations, and other issues. We need to somehow not 
have concentrated power in so few hands.
  In the end, the Specter bill is a comprehensive bill. It has the 
chance of bipartisan support. I think it is a courageous bill. I 
congratulate the Chair and the members of the committee who fought so 
hard to come up with something under difficult circumstances, and I 
hope we are going to be able to get a chance to fix that bill and amend 
that bill appropriately on the floor. I hope that will be the vehicle 
the Senate proudly embraces as a reflection of the values of our 
country and the proper amount of respect for the history we have 
traveled.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I begin by expressing my appreciation to 
the Senator from Massachusetts for the kind things he has had to say 
about the so-called Specter bill, the committee bill. But we can't move 
forward on legislating with that bill until there is an opportunity for 
Members of the Senate to offer amendments. We do not have a system 
where a Senator, even Arlen Specter, offers a bill and it becomes the 
will of the Senate, it is passed by the Senate without having Senators 
having an opportunity to offer amendments.
  It appears now late on Tuesday afternoon, almost 4 o'clock, that 
there is a calculated effort by some not to permit this bill to go 
forward.
  We started on this bill on Wednesday afternoon, but we couldn't vote 
on Thursday until we had sort of a bed check vote. That means one which 
was going to be unanimous but not a meaningful incursion into the tough 
issues to try to start to work the will of the Senate. We had a vote at 
3 o'clock on Thursday afternoon, but all day Thursday, most of the day, 
was consumed by debate and not very pointed debate, fairly generalized 
debate which didn't advance the legislative process very much at all.
  Then on Friday, the Senate was in session, but nobody was around. We 
couldn't offer amendments because the other side of the aisle, the 
Democrats, wouldn't permit us to.
  Then yesterday we structured a couple of amendments on which there 
was really no objection and voted on them pretty much pro forma.
  We are searching for a way to bring up amendments to vote on today 
and couldn't do that. Then this morning, as the record will show, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee offered a 
unanimous consent request for speeches. When we discussed the matter, 
we were told that there wouldn't be any opportunity for votes until the 
party caucuses were finished.
  So we twiddled our thumbs, bided our time until 2:30, and then the 
majority leader called a meeting of Senate Republican Senators to try 
to find a compromise among disagreements within the Republican caucus. 
He was waiting for a call back. Finally, we had word that the minority 
leader had a news conference, and this is what happened, in part, at 
the news conference. I have a transcript.

       Question: Senator Specter was very frustrated this morning 
     at a press conference, saying that work is not really being 
     done because the Democrats are not letting there be votes on 
     amendments, and he can't get agreement on votes on some of 
     the major amendments.
       Could you tell us why it is that your strategy suggests--

  And then an interruption by Senator Reid.

       Maybe Arlen Specter has been so good at what he did in 
     committee that we shouldn't be worried about a lot of 
     amendments.

  It would be nice if Arlen Specter was so good, we wouldn't have to 
worry about a lot of amendments. But let me confess, admit to the 
totality of the circumstance, that I am not that good, or perhaps I am 
that good, but my colleagues don't think I am that good and they want 
to offer amendments. Other Senators want to offer amendments to my 
bill, so that when Senator Reid says maybe he is so good we shouldn't 
be worried about a lot of amendments, people want to offer amendments. 
Two are on the floor now, Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn.
  Then there was a question by one of the reporters not identified:

       But if the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't you be 
     asking for your day on the floor?

  Senator Reid:

       The shoe's not on the other foot.

  That is a pretty conclusive answer. A little while later in the press 
conference:

       Senator Reid, Republicans are saying that you're not 
     allowing amendments to be voted on the floor. Is there a 
     reason for that?

  Senator Reid:

       Well, first of all, at my caucus I indicated to those 
     people there who are interested in understanding where the 
     amendments are, want to offer amendments, to talk to Senator 
     Leahy's staff, Senator Kennedy's staff, Senator Durbin's 
     staff. They're putting together all those amendments.
       And we're happy to take a look at amendments that don't 
     damage the integrity of the bill. But if it's going to be, in 
     the estimation of the unified Democrats, an effort to 
     denigrate this bipartisan bill, then they won't have votes on 
     those amendments.

  I have been around here a while, but I have a hard time understanding 
that last sentence. I have a hard time understanding:

       And we're happy to take a look at amendments that don't 
     damage the integrity of the bill.

  The integrity of the bill under Senate procedures is established by 
votes by Members on amendments. That is how you establish the integrity 
of the bill.
  Then Senator Reid goes on:

       But if it's going to be, in the estimation of the unified 
     Democrats, an effort to denigrate this bipartisan bill, then 
     they won't have votes on those amendments.

  I don't believe there is the power or authority in any Senator or 
group of Senators to validate, conclude that what other Senators want 
to offer by way of amendment denigrates the bill and is the basis for 
not having votes.
  We have pending 100 amendments. It is an exact number. It just 
happens to be 100 precisely. There are 6 amendments pending at the 
present time: Senator Frist on the study on border deaths; Senator Kyl 
on nonimmigrant work authorization; Senator Cornyn on a second-degree 
amendment to Senator Kyl's amendment on nonimmigrant work 
authorization; Senator Isakson on no guest worker program without 
border security; Senator Mikulski on extension of returning worker 
exemption; Senator Dorgan on Canada travel without passport.
  There had been a suggestion that we would vote on Senator Kyl's 
amendment side by side with an amendment by the Democrats. Although I 
believe such an amendment has been produced by the Democrats, they are 
unwilling to permit us to vote on it side by side.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will on the condition that I do not 
lose my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to verify what the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee has just said, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the

[[Page 4782]]

regular order for a vote on amendment No. 3206, which is the amendment 
I offered last Friday to which Senator Specter just referred. There is 
a second-degree amendment that was offered by Senator Cornyn, and there 
is the text of an amendment that I have possession of that was, I 
believe, produced by Senator Kennedy that would be the Democrat side-
by-side amendment, and we could vote on that amendment after the vote 
on the second-degree amendment and my amendment No. 3206. So we can 
determine right now whether the Democratic leadership is preventing us 
from having votes on amendments, such as the amendment that I filed 
last Friday.
  I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the regular order and that 
my amendment No. 3206 then be pending and proceed to a vote on that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
yield for the purpose of my propounding another unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. SPECTER. I so yield on the stipulation I not lose my right to the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this unanimous consent request is simply to 
send to the desk amendment No. 3246, an amendment that Senator Cornyn 
and I would like to send to the desk.
  Mr. REID. What is the question?
  Mr. KYL. To lay aside the current business and send to the desk 
amendment No. 3246.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  Mr. KYL. There is objection heard to that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I renew the unanimous consent request by 
the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, for a vote on his pending amendment 
at 4:30 p.m.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I renew the unanimous consent request by 
the Senator from Arizona for a vote on his amendment at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. I renew the request of the Senator from Arizona for a 
vote on his amendment at midnight.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. We are witnessing here a new procedure in the Senate that I 
am not familiar with, and that is legislating by press conference.
  What we have before the Senate now is a rare moment of 
bipartisanship. We have a bill that came from the Judiciary Committee 
in a bipartisan fashion. It is strong bipartisan legislation that 
strengthens our national security. We need to move forward.
  We have reviewed the list of amendments filed by both sides. There 
are several good-faith amendments that are intended to improve the bill 
without damaging the integrity of the committee product or which are 
not designed to score political points. We are ready to schedule votes 
on these amendments at the right time.
  However, it is important that we take advantage of the bipartisan 
momentum behind this bill and keep moving forward. We must not allow 
this strong bipartisan legislation to be torpedoed for reasons that 
probably are very partisan. We on this side are united behind a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill, a bill that is bipartisan, and 
we are ready for prompt action on this bill. So I object to voting at 
midnight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed with a colloquy with the distinguished Democratic leader, 
without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the high 
compliment by the Senator from Nevada to this superb bipartisan bill 
crafted by Senator Leahy and myself, and I wish to see the bill passed. 
I have worked very hard on it, including a marathon markup last Monday.
  May I ask the Senator from Nevada when is the right time to consider 
amendments?
  Mr. REID. As I said, Mr. President, staffs are looking at it. It is 
my understanding there are 70 to 100 amendments that have been filed; 
is that right?
  Mr. SPECTER. One hundred.
  Mr. REID. We are in the process of looking at those. As you have to 
do on any bill, you have to decide, when you have a bill that is as 
large as this, what amendments are going to be decided to be voted 
upon. It can't be decided on one side; it has to be decided by both 
sides. The only way we are going to get votes on amendments on this 
most important bill is to have both sides agree on them, and we are in 
the process of doing that right now.
  I indicated--as the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania 
indicated--in my caucus today, I said that staff would be working just 
as I outlined. It can't be done in 5 minutes or 10 minutes; it will 
take a little bit of time. But this is an important bill. It deals with 
our national security, it deals with a guest worker program, and it 
deals with a path to legalization for 11 million or so people.
  I will say to my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, that I think the work the Judiciary Committee did on this 
piece of legislation is extraordinary. It is good. Frankly, I was very 
pleasantly surprised at the complexity of the bill and how good it was. 
I like the bill as it is. That is my personal feeling. So I am willing, 
as I have indicated, to work with Senator Leahy and his staff, Senator 
Kennedy and his staff, Senator Durbin and his staff, and we will look 
at these amendments and see if we can agree on a bipartisan basis what 
amendments should be decided here--or voted upon, I should say.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee yield for a question, please?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do, on the condition that I don't lose my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think I misspoke a while ago and talked 
about the amendment that I introduced last Friday--actually, it was 
last Thursday--that Senator Cornyn and I, and I believe Senator George 
Allen is a cosponsor--introduced, amendment No. 3206.
  My question to the chairman is this: In the bill, there is a variety 
of benefits that are provided to illegal immigrants who are in the 
United States today in that they are allowed to gain a legal status 
which can lead to legal permanent residency, sometimes called a green 
card, from which one can apply for citizenship. There are some 
conditions attached to that. Is it not correct that the amendment 
Senator Cornyn and I offered simply adds to those requirements, or 
those benefits, the additional requirement that the individual seeking 
the benefit not have been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors, 
or have violated a judge's order of departure from the United States?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the statement made by the Senator from 
Arizona is correct.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
in your view, is that an amendment that is germane and relevant and 
very specific in that it would add one more requirement to the 
conditions that are allowed--with the benefits--that are allowed under 
the bill, and would it be your view that in no way would that be a 
nongermane or nonrelevant kind of amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would respond in the affirmative. I 
would add that this isn't an amendment which, in Senator Reid's words, 
denigrates this bipartisan bill. I would say it enhances the bill.

[[Page 4783]]


  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could ask another question. As you know, 
there have been some competing bills filed, perhaps the two most 
comprehensive being the bill that was worked on in the committee and 
that came out of the committee in an amended form, and a bill Senator 
Cornyn and I introduced which, when introduced, was far more 
comprehensive, but some of the provisions of our bill were added to the 
bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee. Would it be your view it 
would be entirely appropriate for the Members of the Senate to have an 
opportunity to vote on the bill Senator Cornyn and I introduced and, 
therefore, that we ought to be given an opportunity to lay down our 
bill, an opportunity which would be denied if we continue this exercise 
of having objections to unanimous consent requests to lay down 
amendments?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona asks something 
that is preeminently correct, and that is the way the Senate functions. 
Senators have a right to offer amendments, and the so-called Kyl-Cornyn 
bill is the product of very extensive thinking, analysis, and 
preparation. A good part of it was incorporated into the chairman's 
mark. And certainly Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn are within their 
rights in asking for a vote on it.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could ask a final question of the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Notwithstanding the fact that 
through your good offices a bill was shepherded through the committee, 
a bill which you support and are prepared to vote on and vote for, it 
would be your view that a denial of our opportunity to offer an 
amendment as an alternative would be improper and inappropriate and an 
obstructionist tactic to prevent the Senate from working its will in 
having an opportunity to consider differing points of view on this 
important and complex subject?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, yes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I would, again, on the condition that I don't lose my 
right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee if the offering of amendments during the course of 
a bill's consideration on the floor is the usual procedure to determine 
where consensus lies and in determining what the will of the Senate 
ultimately is, and whether the refusal of the Democrats to allow votes 
on these amendments is obstructing the work of the Senate?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the answer is decisively, obviously, yes.
  Mr. CORNYN. And, Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for 
another question.
  Mr. SPECTER. I do, on the same condition.
  Mr. CORNYN. We are running up against a Friday deadline with a 2-week 
recess of the Senate long standing, and if we are unsuccessful in 
allowing any votes on amendments which are necessary to move this bill 
forward, where do you believe the blame would lie for the Senate's 
inability to successfully finish its work this week on this 
comprehensive border security and immigration reform bill?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would respond by saying the blame would 
lie with those who have lodged objections to very reasonable unanimous 
consent requests, several of which we have heard here this afternoon.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for a final 
question.
  Mr. SPECTER. I do, on the same condition.
  Mr. CORNYN. Isn't it true that this bill for the first time manifests 
a tremendous Federal commitment to live up to the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide additional Border Patrol agents and 
additional technology along the border to enable the United States of 
America to finally secure its borders and potentially prevent the 
incursion of criminals, even terrorists, and that each day that goes 
by, because of our inability to complete our business here on the 
floor, potentially exposes the country to further jeopardy in that 
regard?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my answer to that question is in the 
affirmative.
  Mr. President, proceeding with the discussion with the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada, the Democratic leader, when he says there would be 
votes at the right time, the Kyl-Cornyn amendment was filed last 
Thursday. I agree with him that it takes time to analyze amendments, 
but hasn't there been sufficient time for the Kyl-Cornyn amendment to 
be analyzed and to enable the Democrats on the opposition or a side-by-
side amendment, or whatever course they choose, to come forward and let 
us proceed?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, responding to my friend, it seems quite 
unusual that these crocodile tears are being poured out now because 
amendments aren't being considered. We have waited for years to have an 
amendment considered on raising the minimum wage. We have waited months 
and months to have a debate on amendments on stem cell research. I have 
trouble accepting the plaintive cries from the other side of the aisle 
in not having their amendments heard. With this Republican-dominated 
Senate, we have been unable to offer amendments, only two of which I 
have mentioned. We have tried and tried and tried.
  This is the Senate, and we have 100 amendments pending. And the mere 
fact that the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona offers an 
amendment he believes strongly in does not mean it takes precedence 
over the other 100 amendments that have been offered. This is a 
procedure that has been followed for many years.
  I would further say I simply don't accept the explanation of the 
amendment the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona has offered on 
this bill. First, the Kyl amendment, as amended by Senator Cornyn, 
would make classes--various individuals who would become part of a 
class of undocumented immigrants--ineligible for conditional 
nonimmigrant status and to earn their legalization; for example, 
immigrants who came through the visa program who overstayed their 
visas. Is that what we want to do? I don't want to do it: Make 
immigrants subject to expedited removal at the point of arrival. And 
did you know one of the definitions of aggravated felon that is in this 
legislation is somebody who has twice overstayed their visa?
  So I like the bill we have before the Senate. I don't accept this 
amendment--the Kyl amendment--as one that improves the bill. It hurts 
the bill. It hurts the very foundation and what I believe is the spirit 
of this legislation.
  I do not accept the fact that this good legislation which is now 
before the Senate will be improved by the Kyl amendment as modified by 
the amendment of the distinguished Presiding Officer. I believe the 
bill before us is a good bill and we should stick with it. That is what 
I want to do.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the response--or the words spoken; it was 
not a response--the words spoken by the distinguished Democratic leader 
are interesting, but they do not answer the question. The question was, 
have you had enough time to take a position on the Kyl amendment? And 
your analysis--
  Mr. REID. The answer to the distinguished Senator is yes, I have had 
time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Wait a minute. I am speaking here, and I will not 
interrupt you, Senator Reid.
  Mr. REID. I apologize very much.
  Mr. SPECTER. Your analysis states that you had enough time to analyze 
it, review it, and you are opposed to it. When you mention stem cells, 
you are right. We should have voted on stem cells some time ago. I 
think I have complained more than you have about that. And you are 
right about the minimum wage. It ought to be raised. And I think you 
voted for it every time, but no more often than I have.
  But we are now faced with the immigration bill. When you say that the 
Kyl

[[Page 4784]]

amendment will not improve the immigration bill, my question to you is, 
isn't the way you express that by voting against it, by leading the 
charge against it, as opposed to preventing a vote on it? Isn't that 
the way the Senate functions?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with all due respect to the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he has been in this body a lot 
longer than I have, but I still understand the rules of the Senate. At 
this stage, as a Senator from the State of Nevada, I am not ready to 
move forward on the Kyl amendment. I do not have to explain in any more 
detail than I have why I do not want to move forward on it. I do not 
agree with the amendment. I don't think it is going to benefit this 
legislation pending before the Senate. I am going to do what I can to 
prevent a vote on it. I can't be more direct than that to the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. In a moment I will, to Senator Leahy.
  When the Senator from Nevada says he doesn't have to explain, he is 
wrong. He thinks he does have to explain because this is a Senate 
proceeding by press conference. The Senator from Nevada accurately 
characterized some of the legislative process on this bill as 
legislation by press conference. Of course that has never happened 
before. I mean, it would just be antithetical to the workings of the 
Senate.
  It is hard to walk down that corridor without holding a press 
conference involuntarily. You either hold a press conference or you are 
rude.
  I can't do more by way of gesturing without drawing an objection from 
Senator Byrd. I once acknowledged the presence of the Penn State 
national champions in the gallery, and it was found by the rules that I 
was out of line.
  But we do this all the time, and sometimes by design. A microphone is 
set up there frequently, and we go there voluntarily, and we utilize 
the ink and electronic equipment of the media. This little discussion 
here--more accurately called a charade--is for the media because we 
want to put some pressure on the Democrats to let us vote.
  Senator Reid has come out here to defend his position because he 
thinks he has to, because if he didn't think he had to, he wouldn't be 
here. He is too parsimonious with his time, which is very valuable. I 
daresay he has a long list of calls to return and a long list of calls 
to make and a lot of business to transact, and he came out to the floor 
because he thought he needed to state his position that there is a 
battle and that he is defending himself against the charge that the 
Democrats are stalling and holding up this bill.
  It is late now. It is 4:20 on Tuesday afternoon. We only have--let's 
see--we only have Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. We 
only have 5 days in this week to finish this bill.
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont with the stipulation that I don't 
lose my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. As the Senator from Pennsylvania knows better than anyone 
here, we can accomplish a great deal when we are able to work together. 
He and I and key members of the Republican Party and the Democratic 
Party worked very closely in the Judiciary Committee to report a 
bipartisan piece of legislation to the full Senate.
  We reported a bipartisan bill, and I would like to vote on that. Here 
on the floor, we have voted on several amendments. We voted on the 
Frist amendment, the Bingaman amendment, the Alexander amendment. A 
Mikulski amendment is pending, which I believe could pass. We hope the 
other side will consent to take up Senator Nelson's amendment. Senator 
Brownback and Senator Lieberman have an amendment on detention and 
asylum. There is a Collins amendment, a Republican amendment on 
athletes; a Bond amendment; and another Republican amendment on natural 
science graduate students. Each one could be offered and voted on. 
There are a number of others we are working on.
  I made a suggestion this morning to ask unanimous consent that 
Senators be allowed to talk about amendments they planned to offer. A 
Democratic Senator might speak for 15 minutes and then alternate with 
the Republican side, and so on, back and forth. The junior Senator from 
Arizona objected to that proposal. He has an absolute right, of course, 
to object.
  I hoped that if Senators could come here and talk about amendments 
they hoped to offer, we might be able to work out some amendments in 
the usual way.
  Up until the last few years, when there has been single-party control 
in Washington, we were always able to share one side's amendments with 
the other, to see if there were areas of compromise. We would work out 
a schedule on complicated bills like this one. Certainly, this is the 
practice followed by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania in 
committee. Because he ran it in such a fair way, and because Senators 
on both sides of the aisle were able to discuss their amendments, the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the full committee were 
able to report a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost 
the ability to do that here.
  If we could go back to the traditional manner of doing things, the 
better way of doing things, practices similar to those followed by the 
distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, we could get somewhere.
  As I said, we have already adopted a number of amendments. This is 
the practice I was suggesting when I received an objection this 
morning. I was hoping to set up a series of votes.
  I am not suggesting that the Senator from Arizona was not within his 
rights. Of course, he was within his rights to object. But once he did, 
we lost the ability to set up that procedure which, I believe, in my 
own experience, would have let some amendments go through.
  The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has been more than 
generous. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor. I yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KYL. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for a question to 
me without giving up his right to the floor?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do. I will have a comment to make about what Senator 
Leahy has had to say, but first I will yield to the Senator from 
Arizona on the condition that I do not lose my right to the floor.
  Mr. KYL. I appreciate that. Because the Senator from Vermont referred 
to me and referred to my objection earlier today, let me ask the 
Senator, the chairman of the committee, is it not correct that my 
unanimous consent request this morning, in response to his, was that 
the two Senators from Florida be allowed to address the achievement of 
their Gators basketball team while the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and any other 
members of leadership who needed to be a part of it, begin discussing 
exactly what the Senator from Vermont just now was saying needed to be 
discussed--namely, the order of speakers and the order of amendments 
that would be considered? And is it not further true that the 
Democratic side said that could be done only after the two lunches that 
would conclude sometime around 2:15 this afternoon? So it was not my 
objection to the speaking order request of the Senator from Vermont 
that precluded him or anyone else from discussing with you or anyone 
else the proper order of speaking or offering of amendments or voting 
on amendments; is that not correct?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona accurately 
states the situation.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, may I ask another question of the chairman of 
the committee?
  Mr. SPECTER. Under the same condition.
  Mr. KYL. Given the fact that the distinguished minority leader has, I 
am sure unintentionally, but nonetheless mischaracterized my amendment, 
No.

[[Page 4785]]

3246, wouldn't it be a better process to understand the nature of the 
amendments to discuss them and to debate them under the regular order 
and then have a vote up or down rather than through the process we are 
undertaking right now, which is at best a very indirect approach to 
discussion and in any event doesn't lead to a vote up or down on the 
amendments?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is correct. That 
is the way the Senate functions under our rules.
  Mr. KYL. Finally, one final question, Mr. President, to the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee. Is it not true that one of the critical 
elements of the legislation we are considering right now has yet to be 
added to the bill because the jurisdiction was felt to be in the 
Finance Committee and that the amendment, which would become a separate 
title of the bill dealing with employee eligibility verification, has 
yet to be offered as an amendment and clearly will need to be offered 
as an amendment, debated, considered, and hopefully approved before any 
legislation that purports to be comprehensive immigration reform could 
be voted on and passed by this body?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, again, the Senator from Arizona 
accurately states the situation.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield 
for another question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do under the same condition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let's be factual here. The suggestion was 
made by the Senator from Vermont that we have an order of speakers on 
both sides. These would be Senators who have amendments that they want 
to offer. They would discuss them on the floor with the idea that 
perhaps a bipartisan group could meet after the caucus meetings and 
talk about how we might sequence the amendments. I would note, however, 
for the Senators here, the meeting after the caucus was a closed-door 
meeting to which only Republicans were invited.
  It is somewhat difficult to schedule Republican or Democratic 
amendments in such a meeting. This one-sided meeting was completely 
different than the business meetings the Senator from Pennsylvania held 
in the Judiciary Committee, which were successful in getting a bill to 
the floor.
  I urge the Republican and Democratic leaders to look at the model 
followed by the Senator from Pennsylvania in committee, which reported 
a bill to the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Vermont is 
correct. We did have a closed-door meeting with only Republican 
Senators present. I know they have a superior procedure among the 
Democrats and never have a closed meeting where only Democratic 
Senators are present. I know there is an operational rule where at 
least one Republican Senator has to be present whenever the Democrats 
meet.
  That is supposed to be a laugh line.
  Of course we meet with only Republicans. When the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont, the distinguished ranking member, was commenting 
earlier about missing the St. Patrick's Day recess, I seldom disagree 
with him, but I have to say by way of addendum that he forgot to 
mention that we missed the August recess preparing for the confirmation 
of Chief Justice Roberts. He didn't mention that we missed the December 
recess preparing for the confirmation hearing of Justice Alito. He 
didn't mention that we missed the January recess because of the 
Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Alito. While our colleagues took 
a little time off in August to meet with constituents and work with 
perhaps a little play, they had December off, they had January off--not 
the Judiciary Committee. We were working. So there was not anything 
unusual about the St. Patrick's Day recess to find the Judiciary 
Committee at work. The staff worked very late hours. Then we scheduled 
a markup on the day before the recess ended, when the custom is to come 
back very late on Monday.
  The Senator from Vermont had to leave his cherished farm to come to 
Washington Sunday night to be here early Monday morning for our 
session.
  We were given an impossible job to finish the bill on Monday. We 
surprised a lot of people. We did it.
  Then there was a little consternation about what to do next. The 
committee bill is on the floor, and it is a good bill, but it is not a 
perfect bill. Even if it were a perfect bill, it would still be subject 
to amendment, and ultimately we will get to it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield without his losing 
the floor?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, consistent with not losing the floor, 
when are we going to vote on these amendments?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, of course the Senator from Pennsylvania and 
the Senator from Vermont were both here, missing all those recesses. As 
much as I have enjoyed the company of my friend for over a quarter of a 
century, I did not enjoy it so much that I wanted to miss those 
recesses. There are several amendments that we could vote on in the 
next couple of hours, as far as I am concerned. I would be happy to do 
that.
  Mr. SPECTER. Starting at 6:30?
  Mr. LEAHY. No, starting right now. We have one pending. I mentioned 
that several Senators, including a majority of Senators from the 
Republican side of the aisle, have amendments that we could be voting 
on.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed 
to a vote on the Kyl amendment at 4:40.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object.
  Will the chairman yield for a question without losing the floor?
  Mr. SPECTER. On the same condition.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. 
It is the hardest working committee on Capitol Hill. I am glad I am on 
it. I look at others and they seem to have a lot of time off and we 
don't. I am a member of that committee. I respect the chairman for all 
we have done and tried to do in a short period of time.

       Let me say to the chairman that I am troubled by one of his 
     comments during the course of this conversation. That was the 
     comment that what Senator Kyl seeks to do would improve the 
     bill. I would suggest to the chairman that a careful review 
     of the Kyl amendment will find that it defeats the purpose of 
     a major portion of this bill.

  If that is the intent--to strip from this bill a path to 
legalization--then I think it is a much different bill than the one 
which we approved 12 to 6 out of our committee, a bill which the 
chairman supported and which I supported on a bipartisan basis, and 
which Senator Kyl of Arizona opposed.
  Let me be specific. The Kyl-Cornyn amendment which they are seeking 
to bring to the floor eliminates the path to legalization for 
potentially millions of undocumented immigrants who have committed no 
crime. It eliminates it from this bill. It creates a condition for 
qualification to be eligible for that path that would be, frankly, 
impossible for many to meet. Let me tell you what I mean.
  I ask the chairman if he would still believe this improves the bill. 
Proponents of the Kyl-Cornyn amendment claim that the Judiciary 
Committee bill would allow criminals to become permanent residents. I 
think the chairman knows, as most people do, that the bill expressly 
lays out in specific words those crimes which would disqualify a person 
from a path to legalization. I could go through this long list, but I 
will not, other than to tell you that every crime of moral turpitude, 
and many others, would disqualify one from this legal pathway.
  What the Kyl-Cornyn amendment really does is undermine the earned 
citizenship program in the bill. It prevents potentially millions who 
are in the United States from applying for legal status because of 
status violations and not crimes. The vast majority of undocumented 
immigrants who would be affected by the Kyl-Cornyn amendment are not 
criminals but rather the exact classes of immigrants which we intended 
to help with title VI of the Judiciary Committee bill.
  Our analysis of the Department of Homeland Security data shows that

[[Page 4786]]

over 95 percent of the people who would be affected by the Kyl-Cornyn 
amendment have committed no crime. The only crime they have committed 
is the fact that they are undocumented in America today.
  I ask the chairman how it would improve the bill to remove the path 
for legalization for 95 percent of the people who would be affected by 
the Kyl-Cornyn amendment. If the Kyl-Cornyn amendment passes, the 
United States will still have a crisis of illegality, and we will not 
have what we hoped in the committee, a balanced approach which allows 
those who are currently here a long, arduous but legal way to reach 
their citizenship at some point in their lives.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I feel complimented that the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois has only disagreed with one thing I 
have said, because I have said quite a few things. If that implies that 
he agrees with the other things I have said, then he agrees with quite 
a lot of what I have said.
  With respect to the specific, yes. I don't believe that the Kyl-
Cornyn amendment would destroy the bill as characterized by the Senator 
from Illinois.
  Let me add that the Senator from Illinois is a member of the 
committee and has been a very active and contributory member of the 
committee, and the committee has accomplished quite a lot because of 
the cooperation of Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, and other Democrats 
and Republicans. It has been a very hard-working committee.
  It is my hope to expedite the process of working on the bill. For 
that purpose, I am going to again ask unanimous consent that we vote on 
the Kyl amendment now.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in order to try to bring the Senators to 
the floor to move along, I move----
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question before 
he does that?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could ask this question of the chairman 
of the committee because the Senator from Illinois just made a comment 
about what the pending amendment would do. The pending amendment 
specifies that a person who has committed a felony or three or four 
misdemeanors would be ineligible to participate in the program. The 
Senator from Illinois knows that under existing law people convicted of 
crimes of moral turpitude, certain drug offenses, and other multiple 
crimes are already prohibited from participating in the program.
  But I ask the chairman of the committee if I may lay this predicate 
for the question: The INS Attorney Manual provides Department of 
Homeland Security attorneys with random examples of crimes that have 
been held not to be crimes of moral turpitude by the Board of 
Immigration Appeals and, therefore, whether this sample list of crimes 
would be excluded from the bill that came out of the Judiciary 
Committee and, therefore, people who have committed crimes such as this 
would still be eligible to participate in the program and be put on the 
path to citizenship.
  The sample includes burglary, loan sharking, involuntary 
manslaughter, assault and battery, possession of an unregistered sawed-
off shotgun, riot, kidnaping, certain types not involving ransom, 
making false statements to a U.S. agency, contributing to the 
delinquency of a minor, abandonment of a minor child, alien smuggling, 
reentry after deportation, draft evasion, desertion from the Armed 
Forces, contempt of Congress, and contempt of court.
  Many of these decisions, according to the manual, involve fines, 
distinctions of the technical element of state or foreign companies and 
sometimes crimes which are defined as crimes of moral turpitude.
  That list goes to the specific crimes in the statute. You would have 
to determine whether a crime of moral turpitude was involved in order 
to know whether the individual would be permitted to take advantage of 
the underlying bill.
  If an individual has committed a felony or three or four 
misdemeanors, under the amendment we have filed they would be 
ineligible.
  I ask the chairman of the committee whether it would be wise public 
policy for someone who has committed a felony and has been convicted of 
committing a felony or three or four misdemeanors should participate in 
the program which would ultimately lead to citizenship.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I respond to the Senator's question by 
saying I think he has articulated sound public policy, and I support 
his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3206

  I now call for the regular order with respect to Kyl amendment No. 
3206.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in moving to table the Kyl amendment, 
which I am about to do, I do so only to bring the Senators to the floor 
to try to move the process along. I intend to vote against tabling the 
Kyl amendment, but I do so, to repeat, to try to get the process 
moving. I like what the distinguished ranking member said about his 
willingness to start the votes soon. I hope we can move to that 
procedure.
  I move to table Kyl amendment No. 3206. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may direct a question to the Senator 
from Illinois, the assistant minority leader, does he wish to have 
Senator Reid speak before we vote on the amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I do.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we await 
Senator Reid's arrival to speak on the amendment and that we then vote 
on the motion to table.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before we do that, I believe the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut wishes to speak.
  Mr. SPECTER. May I amend my unanimous consent request? May we limit 
the time to 30 minutes equally divided, and at the end of the 30 
minutes we go to a vote on my motion to table the Kyl amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Were the yeas and 
nays ordered on this vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, they were.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize for being late. I was occupied 
when Senator Specter started talking about an event that I had out in 
the hall, and I thought it was important I come back to the floor. I 
came to spend a few minutes talking about some of his assertions.
  But now what I want to focus on for a minute--Senator Kyl stood and 
told the merits of his amendment, with a very brief outline he gave.
  Senators Kyl and Cornyn claim the Judiciary Committee bill would 
allow criminals to become residents. This simply is not true. The 
Judiciary Committee bill, like the McCain-Kennedy bill upon which it is 
based, already denies earned legalization to broad categories of aliens 
who have committed crimes or are a security risk to our country. 
Immigrants denied legalization include--and this is only a partial 
list--immigrants convicted of ``crimes of moral turpitude: aggravated 
assault, assault with a deadly weapon, fraud, larceny, and forgery; 
immigrants convicted of controlled substance offenses: sale, 
possession, and distribution of drugs, drug trafficking; immigrants 
convicted of theft offenses, including shoplifting; immigrants 
convicted of public nuisance offenses; immigrants with multiple 
criminal convictions;

[[Page 4787]]

immigrants convicted of crimes of violence; immigrants convicted of 
counterfeiting, bribery, or perjury; immigrants convicted of murder, 
rape, or sexual abuse of a minor; immigrants convicted of espionage or 
sabotage; immigrants believed to have engaged in terrorist activity, 
which is broadly defined; immigrants with any association with 
terrorist activity or representatives of a terrorist organization; 
spouses and children of individuals who are inadmissible as a 
terrorist; immigrants known to have acted in ways that are deemed to 
have adverse foreign policy consequences.''
  What the Kyl-Cornyn amendment does is undermine the earned 
citizenship program in the committee bill, which I strongly believe in. 
It would prevent millions of Mexicans, Central Americans, Irish, and 
other nationals from applying for legal status because of status 
violations, not crimes. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants 
who would be affected by this amendment are not criminal aliens but, 
rather, the exact classes of immigrants intended to be covered by title 
VI of the Judiciary Committee bill.
  Our analysis shows that over 95 percent of the people potentially 
affected by this amendment are individuals whose only crime--and 
``crime'' is very loosely construed for purposes of this discussion--is 
being in the United States out of status--95 percent.
  If the Kyl-Cornyn amendment passes, the United States will still 
confront a crisis of illegality and it will deny the will of the 
American people, three out of four of who favor earned legalization for 
immigrants who work, pay their taxes, learn English, and stay out of 
trouble.
  This bill before this body is a very fine piece of legislation. It 
sets a very strict standard to protect our national security. Our 
borders will be protected better than they have ever been protected. It 
will allow places such as Las Vegas, NV--and Las Vegas is not the only 
place. They are going to build within the next few years, 4 to 5 years, 
50,000 new hotel rooms. They will need a minimum of 100,000 new 
workers. This legislation will allow that to happen. There are places 
all over America that are faced not with numbers that are as huge as 
that but with big numbers.
  Finally, what this legislation that is now before the Senate does is 
it allows 11 million-plus people not to have to live in the shadows of 
America. It is a path to earned legalization--not like the old amnesty 
that was done when I served in the House of Representatives--but a path 
toward legalization. Stay out of trouble. Pay your taxes. Have a job. 
Learn English. Go to the back of the line.
  We are here trying to protect the integrity of a bill that is 
bipartisan in nature and one of the best things to happen to this 
partisan atmosphere we find ourselves in. It is a bipartisan bill. Last 
week, we stood on this floor--and I do not think ``boasted'' is the 
right word--and talked about how good it was we were able to pass a 
bipartisan bill that improved the situation dealing with the ethics of 
this body and this country. Why can't we continue on a bipartisan basis 
on this committee-reported bill?
  So for individuals to come to this floor and think we are doing 
something that is anti-Senate, anti-American, because we do not want to 
vote on an amendment that I think guts this bill does not mean there is 
anything wrong with those of us who believe this is what we should not 
do. And it does not take away from the good faith of my friend from 
Arizona. He thinks he is doing the right thing. I disagree with him a 
lot. I think what he is doing is wrong. I think it hurts this bill. And 
I am going to do everything I can to protect this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me yield some time to myself.
  With all due respect, I disagree with my colleague, who has said the 
amendment would deny most of the people whom the bill is intended to 
benefit the benefits of the bill; namely, legal permanent residency and 
citizenship.
  That is only true if most of the people who are supposed to receive 
benefits under the bill have committed a felony or three misdemeanors 
or have violated a court order to leave the country when they have been 
ordered to do so, or have not complied with a prior order of the DHS to 
depart if they are not eligible to participate in the program.
  These are not the people we should be seeking to give the benefits of 
the program to. These are precisely the people who have demonstrated 
either they are criminals or that when you have given them the chance 
to comply with an immigration order, they have refused to do so. I do 
not think the Senator intended to say these are exactly the people we 
want to benefit under this program.
  There are two large classes of people who would be potentially denied 
the benefits of the program by our amendment. The first is, instead of 
referring to crimes of moral turpitude or violation of a crime relating 
to a controlled substance--which are the two specific categories in the 
bill--we say any felony or three misdemeanors.
  And examples of crimes, as I said before, that are not covered by the 
controlled substance or moral turpitude sections are: burglary; loan 
sharking; involuntary manslaughter; assault and battery; possession of 
an unregistered sawed-off shotgun; riot; kidnaping; abandonment of a 
minor child; alien smuggling; reentry after deportation, as I said; 
draft evasion; desertion from the Armed Forces; and others. These are 
crimes that would not be picked up in the pending bill.
  So while it is true some crimes are covered and, therefore, some 
criminals would not get the benefits called for in this pending 
legislation, it is also true many others who have committed these other 
kinds of crimes would not in any way be restricted from participating 
in the benefits of the law.
  The second group is those who have committed immigration violations, 
not just people who are in some status violation. Let me make that 
crystal clear. It is not simply because you overstayed your visa. There 
are only two categories here. You have not complied with a prior 
Department order and, therefore, are not eligible to participate in the 
program.
  In the hearing, by the way, of our subcommittee, we showed that 
between 80 and 85 percent of those released on bail failed to appear 
and comply with removal orders. Clearly, this has to demonstrate a 
disrespect for orders from immigration courts and should not be allowed 
to continue. These are exactly the kind of people you do not want to be 
participating in the program because they have already demonstrated a 
willingness to violate immigration law after being ordered to do so.
  Secondly, those who have not only failed to depart after being 
ordered--they have entered illegally, but that is not what we are 
talking about here. Entering illegally does not count under this 
amendment to deny them benefits. Rather, you have to have done that and 
been ordered by the court to depart as a result of some violation and 
further refused to comply with the judge's order.
  So this is not just a status violation. Merely coming here illegally 
would not be covered by this amendment, period. You would have to 
commit a felony--been convicted of a felony, three misdemeanors, or 
have intentionally violated an order of the court to depart after 
having been ordered to do so by the court.
  I think what this amendment does is to make it crystal clear that the 
intention of the Senate is that people participating in the program not 
be convicted criminals or people who have deliberately violated a court 
order dealing with departure from the United States.
  It is interesting that most of the language we took came from the 
1986 bill, and for some reason that language was omitted from the bill 
that is pending before the Senate. So it seems to me if we are going to 
at least get to most of the people we would not want to participate in 
this program, we would want to deny that right to those who have 
committed serious crimes, such as the ones I have articulated here.

[[Page 4788]]

  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take the time allocated to me to 
address the larger issue of this bill; although, clearly, the amendment 
being offered by our colleagues from Arizona and Texas impacts the 
larger question: the decision of whether we deal with a part or the 
whole of the immigration issue.
  You can make a case, obviously, that by just dealing with border 
security issues, you are dealing with an important and essential 
element of immigration reform. I would quickly argue that if you just 
deal with border security and do not also deal with the phenomena of 11 
million people who are here illegally, you would only be addressing 
half of the issue--a legitimate half of the issue--without any kind of 
recourse or plan on how you ultimately deal with the fact that we have 
11 to 12 million people who are here under an illegal status.
  So I appreciate the work of my colleague from Arizona, and I would be 
urging colleagues to vote no on the motion to table because I think we 
ought to have a bit more time to analyze and discuss exactly what the 
implications of this amendment are.
  Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of comprehensive 
immigration reform. I want to acknowledge the work of those on the 
Judiciary Committee who have done a fabulous job, in my view, through 
extensive hearings and a very worthwhile markup session. I watched 
almost every minute of it. I was deeply impressed with our colleagues, 
Republicans and Democrats, who addressed this issue.
  Let me be clear from the outset--something we need to say over and 
over and over and over again--immigration reform is first and foremost 
about protecting America's national security, our economy, and our 
citizens from the myriad of challenges we are going to face in the 21st 
century. We have no higher priority than those: to protect our national 
security, to protect our borders, and to protect our economy.
  Therefore, any discussion of immigration reform must begin with an 
emphatic declaration of our intentions here: to secure our borders; to 
protect our citizens from a flood of people arriving here, albeit with 
good motives. But it is unrealistic to assume that any nation in this 
world can have open borders--unlimited for people who want to come 
here. So I believe it is extremely important we state that case at the 
outset.
  But I also believe that it is an enormously complex and difficult 
issue. It is that very complexity that leads us to the concerns 
expressed by some of my colleagues. There is a very real temptation to 
deal only with certain aspects of immigration and to put off the more 
difficult matters to some future time and date. That is exactly what 
the other body did back in December when they passed a bill dealing 
only with the issue of border security and enforcement and neglected 
entirely dealing with the phenomena of 11 million human beings who 
reside in this country today without documentation.
  Which brings me to the legislation currently before the Senate. One 
version, introduced by our colleague, Senator Frist, mainly addresses 
border security and enforcement. Certainly, these are critical 
components of any immigration reform package. No bill should be 
considered comprehensive without them at all. But Senator Frist's bill 
does not go nearly far enough toward addressing the other monumental 
challenges we face on immigration, including the presence of more than 
11 million human beings, undocumented, in the United States, who need 
to be brought out of the shadows and into the open.
  In my view, turning our backs on this reality is the same thing as 
turning our backs on providing border security. If we had a bill before 
us that only dealt with how we handle 11 million people who are here 
illegally and not border security, that would be a flawed piece of 
legislation. The fact that you are dealing with just border security is 
equally flawed. We need to have both parts here if we are going to 
succeed.
  Thankfully, of course, Senator Specter has provided us, along with 
the Judiciary Committee members, with an approach that does address 
both pieces of this problem. Is it an imperfect bill? Absolutely. Does 
it need more work? Absolutely. But clearly, it is one that brings the 
balance of dealing with border security, national security, and 
economic security, as well as realistically trying to deal with the 11 
million undocumented workers who have come to our country.
  The Specter amendment toughens our borders. We clearly need to do 
more to control these borders and to prevent individuals from illegally 
entering our country because, fundamentally, border control is a 
national security issue. The Specter amendment would provide advanced 
border security technologies to assist those tasked with protecting 
these frontiers. The Specter amendment would also improve our ability 
to enforce immigration laws by making structural reforms and increasing 
personnel and funding levels where they are needed most. I won't go 
into all the details here, but 12,000 new agents along that border will 
clearly help.
  My good friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn, and I were privileged to 
attend a meeting in Mexico a few weeks ago, an interparliamentary 
meeting that I have attended for 26 years--odd years here, even years 
in Mexico. We were both deeply impressed with a document prepared by 
our colleagues in Mexico that has been signed by all five candidates 
for President of Mexico, which will be holding elections on July 2, as 
well as the major parties in Mexico. It is a rather short document. I 
will ask for it to be included in the Record. Senator Cornyn and I 
actually sent this to each of our colleagues to look at. But our 
friends from Mexico list national security, border security, as one of 
the guiding principles in what must be a part of any immigration reform 
proposal. It is worth reading because these issues are not only our 
concern but their concern as well. If Mexico is unwilling or incapable 
of helping us keep our borders secure, then this legislation will not 
work.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[The Mexican Congress adopted this document as a Concurrent Resolution]

                  Mexico and the Migration Phenomenon

       In Mexico, as in other countries and regions of the world, 
     migration is a complex and difficult phenomenon to approach. 
     The diverse migration processes of exit, entrance, return and 
     transit of migrants are all present in our country.
       Given the extent and the characteristics of today's 
     migration phenomenon, which will continue in the immediate 
     future and given the implications that it represents for our 
     country's development, a new vision and a change are 
     necessary in the way Mexican society has approached, thus 
     far, its responsibilities toward the migration phenomenon.
       Over the last years, the magnitude reached by Mexican 
     migration and its complex effects in the economic and social 
     life of Mexico and the United States, have made the migration 
     phenomenon increasingly important for the national agendas of 
     both countries, and a priority issue in the bilateral agenda.
       From the outset of the Administration, the government of 
     President Fox put forward a proposal to the Mexican public 
     opinion and to the highest authorities in the United States, 
     regarding a comprehensive plan aimed at dealing with the 
     diverse aspects of migration between the two countries. 
     Mexico based its proposal on the principle of shared 
     responsibility, which acknowledges that both countries must 
     do their share in order to obtain the best results from the 
     bilateral management of the migration phenomenon.
       In 2001, the governments of both nations intensified the 
     dialogue and set in motion a process of bilateral 
     negotiations with the intent of finding ways to face the 
     multiple challenges and opportunities of the phenomenon; 
     these actions were taken with the objective of establishing a 
     new migration framework between the two countries.
       However, the terrorist attacks of September 2001 against 
     the United States, criminal acts which were unmistakably 
     deplorable, altered the bilateral agenda on migration. On the 
     one hand, the link between migration and national security--
     mainly along the shared border--is now an essential issue of 
     that agenda. On the other hand, the participation in the 
     migration debate of varied

[[Page 4789]]

     political actors--especially legislators of both countries--
     has increased.
       The debate that is currently taking place in the United 
     States, concerning a possible migration reform, represents an 
     opportunity for Mexico and for the bilateral handling of the 
     phenomenon. It also encourages a deep analysis of the 
     consequences that this process can have for our country and 
     its migration policy.
       Based on a joint initiative by the Executive Branch and the 
     Senate of Mexico, a group of federal authorities responsible 
     for the management of the migration phenomenon, senators and 
     congressmen, members of the academia, experts in migratory 
     issues, and representatives of civil society organizations, 
     agreed to initiate an effort that seeks to build a national 
     migration policy, founded over shared diagnoses and 
     platforms. Accordingly, the group has held a series of 
     discussions titled Prospects and Design of Platforms for the 
     Construction of a Mexican Migration Policy.
       The ideas expressed in this document are the result of 
     those discussions. They intend to bring up to date Mexico's 
     migration position and to offer some specific guidance 
     regarding the process of migration reform in the United 
     States.


                               Principles

       Based on the discussions held, the participants agreed upon 
     the following set of principles that should guide Mexico's 
     migration policy:
       The migration phenomenon should be fully understood by the 
     Mexican State--society and government--because it demands 
     actions and commitments that respond to the prevailing 
     conditions.
       The migration phenomenon has international implications 
     that demand from Mexico actions and international 
     commitments--in particular with the neighboring regions and 
     countries--which, in accordance with the spirit of 
     international cooperation, should be guided by the principle 
     of shared responsibility.
       Mexico's migration policy acknowledges that as long as a 
     large number of Mexicans do not find in their own country an 
     economic and social environment that facilitates their full 
     development and well-being, and that encourages people to 
     stay in the country, conditions for emigrating abroad will 
     exist.
       Mexico must develop and enforce its migration laws and 
     policy with full respect for the human rights of the migrants 
     and their relatives, notwithstanding their nationality and 
     migration status, as well as respecting the refugee and 
     asylum rights, in accordance with the applicable 
     international instruments.
       The increased linkage between migration, borders and 
     security on the international level, is a reality present in 
     the relationship with our neighboring countries. Hence, it is 
     necessary to consider those three elements when drawing up 
     migration policies.
       Mexico is committed to fighting all forms of human 
     smuggling and related criminal activities, to protecting the 
     integrity and safety of persons, and to deepening the 
     appropriate cooperation with the governments of the 
     neighboring countries.
       The migration processes that prevail in Mexico are 
     regionally articulated--in particular with Central America--
     and therefore the Mexican migration policy should deepen its 
     regional approach.


 Recommendations regarding the commitments that Mexico should agree on

       Main recommendations considered by the group in order to 
     update Mexico's migration policy:
       Based on the new regional and international realities 
     regarding immigration, transmigration and emigration, it is 
     necessary to evaluate and to update the present migration 
     policy of the Mexican State, as well as its legal and 
     normative framework, with a timeline of fifteen to twenty 
     years.
       It is necessary to impel the economical and social 
     development that, among other positive effects, will 
     encourage people to stay in Mexico.
       If a guest country offers a sufficient number of 
     appropriate visas to cover the biggest possible number of 
     workers and their families, which until now cross the border 
     without documents because of the impossibility of obtaining 
     them, Mexico should be responsible for guaranteeing that each 
     person that decides to leave its territory does so following 
     legal channels.
       Based on international cooperation, Mexico must strengthen 
     the combat against criminal organizations specialized in 
     migrant smuggling and in the use of false documents, as well 
     as the policies and the legal and normative framework for the 
     prevention and prosecution of human smuggling, especially 
     women and children, and the protection of the victims of that 
     crime.
       It is necessary to promote the return and adequate 
     reincorporation of migrants and their families to national 
     territory.
       Mexico's migration policy must be adjusted taking into 
     account the characteristics of our neighboring countries, in 
     order to safeguard the border and to facilitate the legal, 
     safe and orderly flow of people, under the principles of 
     shared responsibility and respect for human rights.
       Order and security in Mexico's north and south borders must 
     be fortified, with an emphasis on the development of the 
     border regions.
       Reinforce cooperation with the United States and Canada 
     through the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North 
     America, and with the regional bodies and mechanisms for the 
     treatment of the phenomenon, like the Regional Conference on 
     Migration and the Cumbre Iberoamericana.
       The review and, if necessary, adjustment of the judicial 
     and institutional framework, in order to adequately respond 
     to the present and the foreseeable conditions of the 
     migration phenomenon; this will require the creation of a 
     specialized inter-institutional mechanism of collaboration.
       The creation of permanent work mechanisms for the Executive 
     and Legislative Branches, with the participation of academic 
     and civil society representatives that allow the development 
     and fulfillment of Mexico's migration agenda.


  Elements related to a possible migration reform in the United States

       Mexico does not promote undocumented migration and is eager 
     to participate in finding solutions that will help us face 
     the migration phenomenon. Accordingly, the group decided to 
     express certain thoughts about what is Mexico's position in 
     case a migration reform takes place in the United States.
       Acknowledging the sovereign right of each country to 
     regulate the entrance of foreigners and the conditions of 
     their stay. It is indispensable to find a so1ution for the 
     undocumented population that lives in the United States and 
     contributes to the development of the country, so that people 
     can be fully incorporated into their actual communities, with 
     the same rights and duties.
       Support the proposal of a far-reaching guest workers 
     scheme, which should be one of the parts of a larger process 
     that includes the attention of the undocumented Mexicans that 
     live in the United States.
       In order for a guest workers program to be viable, Mexico 
     should participate in its design, management, supervision and 
     evaluation, under the principle of shared responsibility.
       A scheme aimed to process the legal temporary flow of 
     persons, will allow Mexico and the United States to better 
     combat criminal organizations specialized in the smuggling of 
     migrants and the use of false documents, and to combat, in 
     general, the violence and the insecurity that prevail in the 
     shared border. Likewise, Mexico would be in a better position 
     to exhort potential migrants to abide by the proper rules and 
     to adopt measures in order to reduce undocumented migration.
       Mexico should conclude the studies that are being conducted 
     to know which tasks will help with the implementation of a 
     guest workers program, regarding the proper management of the 
     supply of potential participants, the establishment of 
     supporting certification mechanisms, and the supervision and 
     evaluation of its development.
       Mexico acknowledges that a crucial aspect for the success 
     of a temporary workers program refers to the capacity to 
     guarantee the circular flow of the participants, as well as 
     the development of incentives that encourage migrants to 
     return to our country. Mexico could significantly enhance its 
     tax-preferred housing programs, so that migrants can 
     construct a house in their home communities while they work 
     in the United States.
       Other mechanisms that should be developed are the 
     establishment of a bilateral medical insurance system to 
     cover migrants and their relatives, as well as the agreement 
     of totalization of pension benefits, which will allow 
     Mexicans working in the United States to collect their 
     pension benefits in Mexico.
       Mexico could also enhance the programs of its Labor and 
     Social Development Ministries, in order to establish social 
     and working conditions that encourage and ease the return and 
     reincorporation of Mexicans into their home communities.
       This working group aims to become a permanent body of 
     study, debate and development of public policies for the 
     handling of the migration phenomenon.

  Mr. DODD. The other provision I wish to address in the brief time I 
have available goes beyond the border security issue that the Specter 
amendment clearly addresses. Individuals have come to our country 
looking for work, and we know from surveys that 94 percent of 
undocumented males in this country are in fact working. These are not 
unemployed people who are looking for first-time jobs; these are people 
with jobs who saw a better opportunity in coming across our borders.
  I know it has been said, but every one of us here can tell family 
stories going back a generation or more, regardless of where we have 
come from, on why our forebears came here. Mostly it was for economic 
reasons, in the past, or political reasons that made it difficult for 
our forebears to remain in the countries of their birth.
  I acknowledge that people have come here illegally. That is wrong, 
and we need to put a stop to it. The Specter amendment also 
acknowledges that fact. It doesn't give these people a free

[[Page 4790]]

ride at all. Instead, it would penalize illegal immigrants by requiring 
undocumented workers to pay fines, pay all back taxes, submit 
themselves to background checks, and learn English. But then it does 
allow them to move out of that status. That is one of the differences.
  If we add an additional burden, which our friends from Arizona and 
Texas are implying here, that if you came in under a legal visa and you 
have overstayed that visa, then you can never move out of that status 
again regardless of whether you have complied with these other 
provisions, it seems to me we are only compounding our problems.
  Certainly, this legislation also provides an avenue for undocumented 
workers to come out in the open, to earn legalization. Earning legal 
status wouldn't be an easy process. An individual who takes advantage 
of this program would have to work for 6 years before he or she could 
even receive a green card. At that point, they would be put at the back 
of the line of some 3.5 million people who are legally seeking entry 
into the United States as I speak. They would come first. These 
undocumented workers would come after those people had been approved. 
It would take a minimum of 5 additional years of steady employment 
before the individual could finally become an American citizen. That is 
11 years. That is certainly not a light process to go through. With a 
pathway to citizenship--not amnesty at all but an earned pathway--we 
will provide incentives to undocumented workers to come out of the 
shadows of society.
  Why is that important? For many reasons. Because the presence of so 
many individuals without documentation in our country creates enormous 
challenges for law enforcement. It undermines worker protections. It is 
bad for security. It is bad for American workers. It is bad for 
undocumented immigrants themselves. Moreover, it is impossible to 
adequately protect U.S. national security if we don't know who is 
living within our borders. And by bringing undocumented workers into 
the open, we will help law enforcement professionals and our security 
services do their jobs: protecting the American people and enforcing 
our laws--there is no higher priority we have than that. And if we have 
a process that goes on for 11 years, a pathway, we begin to assist in 
that effort.
  As I said, among other provisions, the Specter amendment would double 
the size of the Border Patrol over 5 years, adding 12,000 new agents to 
patrol our borders. It would expand the number of interior enforcement 
officers by 1,000 per year over each of the next 5 years. It would 
utilize advanced technologies to improve surveillance along the border, 
creating a virtual fence to detect and apprehend people who are 
illegally attempting to enter this country. And it would create new and 
increased penalties for individuals trying to subvert our borders with 
tunnels or who attempt to smuggle people into the U.S.
  I support these measures. But they are only one part of the bigger 
equation. We also have to find a way to deal with the more than 11 
million undocumented individuals living within our borders.
  These are predominantly individuals who have come to the U.S. to make 
a living, and to support themselves and their families. Ninety-four 
percent of undocumented men, according to a March 7, 2006, Pew poll, 
choose to work. These are, for the most part, hardworking individuals, 
who are not here to flood the welfare rolls or collect our charity. 
They are here to work and to contribute. They want what all of our 
families wanted when they came to the U.S.--a piece of the American 
dream.
  I acknowledge that they came here illegally and this is wrong. And so 
does the Specter amendment. It wouldn't give them a free ride. Instead, 
it would penalize illegal immigrants by requiring undocumented workers 
to pay fines. It would require them to pay all back taxes, submit 
themselves to background checks, and learn English.
  But critically, this legislation also provides an avenue for 
undocumented workers to come out into the open, to earn legalization. 
Earning legal status wouldn't be an easy process either. An individual 
who takes advantage of this program would have to work for 6 years 
before he or she could even receive a green card. At that point, they 
would be put at the back of the line--behind everyone who has come here 
legally--and it would take a minimum of 5 additional years of steady 
employment before the individual could finally become an American 
citizen. That's 11 years in total.
  With a pathway to citizenship, not an amnesty but an earned pathway, 
we will provide incentives to undocumented workers to come out of the 
shadows of our society. Why is this so important?
  Because the presence of so many individuals without documentation in 
our country creates enormous challenges for law enforcement and 
undermines worker protections. It is bad for our security, bad for the 
American worker, and bad for undocumented immigrants themselves.
  Moreover, it is impossible to adequately protect U.S. national 
security if we don't know who is living within our borders. By bringing 
undocumented individuals out into the open, we will help law 
enforcement professionals and our security services do their job: 
protecting the American people and enforcing our laws. We will also 
help prevent the type of workplace abuses that are bad for everyone, 
Americans and immigrants alike.
  Despite what has been said on this floor, not all people seek to come 
permanently to the U.S. Many seek temporary work here and desire to 
return home when that work is complete.
  There are legitimate concerns that temporary workers might displace 
American workers who are available and willing to take a job. That 
should never be the case. Wherever possible, American jobs should be 
filled first and foremost with American workers.
  The Specter amendment addresses this reality. It creates a new 
temporary worker classification to meet the needs of American 
businesses. It would also strengthen procedures to help ensure that no 
American workers are displaced when temporary workers are hired.
  As I have said, the Specter amendment is truly comprehensive 
legislation. It would be impossible to discuss every provision in the 
bill at length. So I would just like to comment briefly on a few 
additional items of interest.
  First, I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee included provisions 
of the DREAM Act in its legislation. I've long supported the DREAM Act, 
which in my view is a common sense measure, allowing undocumented 
students under the age of 16, who were brought into this country 
illegally through no fault of their own, a chance to complete higher 
education.
  Qualifying students, however, will have had to live in the U.S. for 
at least 5 years prior to the date of enactment of this legislation. If 
they earn and advanced degree or serve our country in the Armed Forces, 
they would then be granted permanent status and allowed to petition for 
citizenship. Every student deserves a chance to learn and to serve a 
cause greater than themselves. This measure will give many deserving 
children that opportunity.
  Finally, I would like to highlight a provision included in the 
Specter amendment that is receiving somewhat less attention. Throughout 
my tenure in the Senate, I've tried to raise awareness about western 
hemisphere affairs. Indeed during all my years in this body, I have 
served as a member of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western 
Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs--even, for a time, as 
chairman. One thing I would note about the immigration issue, from a 
regional perspective, is that many of the problems we are facing--drug 
trafficking, crime, and insecurity--are also affecting our neighbors in 
the hemisphere. Just like us, they are struggling to address these 
seemingly intractable problems every day.
  That is why I am pleased that in its bill, the Judiciary Committee 
included measures to help our neighbors. In particular, the Specter 
amendment would establish programs to help Guatemala

[[Page 4791]]

and Belize fight human smuggling and gain control of their tenuous 
borders. It would also encourage strategic coordination across the 
hemisphere to fight the growing problem of gang violence. In my view, 
these are critically important provisions, and I hope we can do more to 
help some of our closest neighbors on these issues. Because in reality, 
we cannot solve our problems here without also addressing the roots of 
the problems abroad.
  Unless we act now to address the enormous challenge posed by illegal 
immigration, the problem is only going to get worse. The Specter 
amendment isn't perfect--I think most of my colleagues would agree with 
that statement--but I do believe it is a critical measure that will 
help to resolve many of the challenges we face with respect to illegal 
immigration. I again thank my colleagues for their hard work and 
leadership on this issue.
  My hope is that we strike that balance between border security, 
economic security, national security, and then also designing, as we 
have with the Specter amendment, a process that will allow for these 
people to move out of the shadows into the open, and into a legal 
status. It is a difficult path, a cumbersome path, but a path that will 
allow them to achieve that status at the end of the road.
  I urge adoption of the Specter amendment, and I urge that we not 
table the Kyl amendment at this point, that we need to examine this 
issue even more carefully.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. May I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask to be notified when there is 2 minutes remaining 
and that that time be given to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Connecticut cares 
passionately about conditions. So do I, and so do all the Members of 
the Senate about trying to find a solution. We have dramatic 
differences between the solutions which have been proposed here and 
those which have been proposed by the House. But the way I interpret 
what the House did, it is to send a message to the Senate that first 
and foremost we need to build a foundation of border security to stop 
the people streaming across our border--yes, in search of a better 
life, but we know that mingled amongst those people who come here for 
economic reasons because they have, perhaps, no hope and no opportunity 
where they live, there may be a criminal. There may be a terrorist. 
While there are many people who do care passionately about trying to 
find a comprehensive solution to this problem, the kind of slow-boating 
we have seen so far during this debate isn't helping us get to that 
solution.
  In fact, we have had three votes on amendments since this bill came 
to the floor. To those who say: Yes, we want to find a solution; yes, 
the bill that is on the floor is a good start, but maybe it is not 
perfect; the best way for us to proceed is to have some votes and to 
have some debate--that is the way this body, sometimes noted as the 
greatest deliberative body on Earth, is supposed to work. That is the 
way democracy works. I may win some of those votes. I may lose some. 
But let's have debate. Let's build a consensus in the country by 
building a consensus in this body about where we ought to go to find a 
solution, and then let majorities govern. Let's reconcile our 
differences with the House and then send a bill to the President that 
he will sign that is consistent with our values, consistent with our 
security interests, and consistent with our economic interests. That is 
what I want to do.
  I believe many on the floor of the Senate want to do that. But what 
we have seen by the fact that the Democratic leadership has objected to 
allowing us to set aside pending amendments or have votes on pending 
amendments up until this point is that we have had three votes, and we 
are running out of time. The leader has allocated 2 weeks to debate 
this bill and hopefully to finish it by Thursday night or Friday, when 
we begin the next 2-week recess. But I am getting the distinct 
impression that the desire is not so much to pass a bill but, rather, 
to block the kind of democratic process I just described a moment ago 
from even occurring, to prevent Senators from offering their 
suggestions by way of amendment and offering those to the Members for 
an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. It bears some resemblance to 
some of the obstruction we have seen in the past, particularly when it 
comes to judicial nominations. It prevents the Senate from working its 
will. It prevents us from protecting the American people.
  When I say ``protecting the American people,'' I am advised that 
today, according to current numbers on illegal immigration across our 
borders, we have about 2,300 people coming each day into our country 
across our broken borders. Last year, it was 1.1 million people, but 
today and each day that we fail to protect our borders, each day we 
fail to deal with this very complex but urgent and important problem, 
we have 2,300 more people coming across our broken borders. I hope and 
pray that it is not someone who is bent on doing some harm to innocent 
life.
  We know in a post-9/11 world that those who would exploit our broken 
borders could, if they had the desire, perhaps commit another heinous 
act like 9/11 within our country. We know that recently, there were 
those from this body who were investigating the possibility: Can you 
smuggle the ingredients of a dirty bomb across our borders? Indeed, 
they were able to do so by producing false identification. So we know 
America is vulnerable. But how irresponsible would it be to block the 
ability of this body to consider this bill, to pass it in due course, 
and to get it on the President's desk?
  I fear there are those who want to jam this bill, as it is currently 
written, down the throats of those of us who have a different idea or 
prevent us from having those votes which are important to letting the 
process work. None of us has the authority to dictate to others what 
kind of legislation is going to pass out of this body. I am afraid that 
is what we are seeing. Those who preferred this particular approach in 
the Judiciary Committee bill are trying to jam it through the Senate, 
trying to deny those of us who have different ideas from presenting 
those ideas and offering them for a vote on the Senate floor.
  This particular motion to table the amendment Senator Kyl and I have 
proposed is illustrative of the important changes and improvements that 
need to be made to this bill. Indeed, if you compare this to 1986, the 
last time Congress passed an amnesty that failed completely, you will 
see a lot of similarities between the bill on the floor and that 
amnesty in 1986--except, believe it or not, the bill that is presently 
before the Senate is even worse. In 1986, the law said that if you are 
a convicted felon, if you have committed three misdemeanors, you are 
not eligible for amnesty. This bill on the floor does not provide that 
exclusion from the general grant of amnesty.
  Furthermore, there are some who say: OK, convicted felons, people who 
commit misdemeanors, but don't exclude from the grant of amnesty the 4- 
to 500,000 people who have had their day in court, who are so-called 
absconders, who are under final orders of deportation, because it 
wouldn't be fair to exclude them from this general grant of amnesty.
  I disagree. I believe if you have had one bite at the apple or if you 
have had your day in court, you have had due process of law but you 
have demonstrated your unwillingness to comply with the lawful order of 
a court, then you should not be given amnesty so that you can remain in 
this country because if you are demonstrating by your very first acts, 
once you have come to this country, that you have no respect for our 
laws, then how are we to expect that you will ever have respect for 
other laws that are important for public safety and for the welfare of 
the American people?

[[Page 4792]]

  Among these 4- to 500,000 people who would be included as absconders 
that this motion to table seeks to prevent us from excluding under the 
general grant of amnesty, in 2004, the Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement detention and removal operations removed 165,000-plus 
aliens from the United States. Of those 165,000-plus, 65,000 had been 
previously formally removed or deported at least one time before. So 
not only are the people who are sought to be excluded from this general 
grant of amnesty guilty of violating our laws, many of them are guilty 
of violating it on a serial basis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes remains on the Senator's side.
  Mr. CORNYN. I urge our colleagues not to table this important 
amendment, that we have an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor as soon 
as possible.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is there any time remaining on the other 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes to close. I 
gather this will be a 100-to-nothing vote not to table. I agree with 
the Senator from Texas. We should not table the amendment, but we 
should have a vote up or down on it. If you don't like it, then vote 
against it.
  I will make something very clear. If you came across the border from 
Mexico into the United States, into Texas, Arizona, California or New 
Mexico, and you came across illegally, this amendment has nothing 
whatsoever to do with you--unless you also are a criminal or you have 
been convicted of a felony or of three misdemeanors or you are an 
absconder--that is to say, after you came into the country illegally, 
and you were ordered to leave by a judge, and you refused to leave. 
Those are the circumstances this amendment applies to. It doesn't apply 
to you if all you did was come in illegally. In other words, that 
status is not implicated by this amendment.
  We simply seek to deny the benefits of this legislation--legal 
permanent residency and a pathway to citizenship--to people convicted 
of a felony, three misdemeanors or, in this category of an absconder, 
which the Senator from Texas talked about. Why is this important? It is 
because there are a certain number of people who have violated such an 
order. They have failed to leave the country when they were ordered to 
do so.
  According to the testimony before the subcommittee I chair in the 
Judiciary Committee, about a month ago, the statistics are now that 
about 10 percent of the people entering the country illegally are 
criminals; it is between 10 and 15 percent. They are serious criminals. 
I hope that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Kyl amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 0, nays 99, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                NAYS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     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
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will turn to the chairman in a moment, 
but we are in an unusual situation. When we step back and look at this 
bill, we see we have an important bill that is a national security 
issue, an issue of fairness and equity, and we have a good bill on the 
floor that does not have 60 votes. That is pretty clear today, after 
all of the discussions. Yet we are not allowed--in spite of having good 
amendments which can make this bill even better, we are not being 
allowed to move those amendments forward at all.
  It is very clear by the last vote where the vote was, I think almost 
unanimous, that people are not serious about moving these amendments 
forward one at a time. I think it is disrespectful to the body itself 
because they are good amendments on both sides of the aisle that need 
to be debated and that need to come to a vote, and we are not allowed 
to do that. It is coming from the other side of the aisle.
  I think that we need to get serious about it. It needs to be a 
dignified debate and a civil debate. Right now, we are not going to 
finish the bill. It is in effect being blocked by the other side 
because we are not allowed to get amendments to the floor so that at 
some point this bill could reach a threshold of 60 votes.
  So I am very frustrated now, and I think colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle are. I know the chairman is. We had about 2 hours of debate 
earlier this afternoon that made it very apparent that the other side 
is trying to stop the bill. I just plead with our colleagues to come 
together and have both sides be able to offer their amendments.
  It is Tuesday. If we work tonight and we work Wednesday and Thursday 
and Friday, we can pass a bill that will address border security, that 
will address interior enforcement and worksite enforcement, and that 
will address the issue of a temporary worker program that is fair to 
the 12 million or 13 million or 11 million people out there today who 
are here illegally.
  That is what can be achieved. But the other side is basically 
delaying, postponing, obstructing, and not allowing us to consider 
amendments, and that is all that we ask.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think it takes a lot to criticize the fact 
that Republicans are offering amendments and we wouldn't allow votes on 
them. This has been the history of the Republican-controlled Senate for 
years: not allowing us to have votes on amendments that we offer, or 
wanted to offer. How many amendments have there been? Minimum wage, 
Dubai Ports, health care in many different areas such as stem cell, 
prescription drugs, and importation of prescription drugs. So there may 
be some logical issues that could be propounded as to why the majority 
doesn't like what is going on here. But the fact that we are not 
allowing votes on amendments should fall on deaf ears because we are 
experts at trying to offer amendments and not having votes on them.
  So I repeat what I said a little while ago. We have on the Senate 
floor today a bipartisan piece of legislation. Over here, we are 
united. We like the bill. The vast majority of us in the minority 
really like this bill, the one that is before the Senate right now. For 
example, the Kyl amendment, which was not tabled--it was moved in an 
effort to table their own amendment, which was somewhat surprising to 
me, but it wasn't tabled. The Kyl amendment, as I have explained on the 
floor before, would defeat a very good bipartisan bill. It would take 
what I believe, from my eyes, is the integrity of the bill, it would 
take it away.
  This is a good bill, a bill that has strong enforcement. It provides 
for

[[Page 4793]]

guest workers, and those in America who are interested in business 
support this. For example, the Chamber of Commerce, including the 
National Chamber of Commerce, supports those provisions in this bill, 
and then, of course, the path to legalization, which is so American, 
not anti-American--the path to legalization for these people.
  I don't believe we should do amnesty. I was part of that in 1986 and 
it didn't work very well, and that is an understatement. This is not 
amnesty, what is in this bill. I like it. The vast majority of the 
minority likes it.
  So we are willing to have our efforts rise or fall on this bill that 
is before the Senate. We are not going to allow amendments like Kyl-
Cornyn take out what we believe is the goodness of this bill.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I interpret what the Democratic leader said 
to be that we have a bill on the floor that is a good bill and a solid 
bill but that the other side of the aisle does not want to give us the 
opportunity to amend that bill in any way, that they just want to flat 
out deny that. And I say--and that is my question--that the other side 
really just wants one vote, and it is on a bill that is a good bill, 
but we haven't given everybody here the opportunity to participate and 
debate and amend. That is my interpretation. I think that is wrong. I 
say that because we just voted 99 to 0 not to table the Kyl amendment.
  So the Kyl amendment is pending, and it is the regular order of 
business that has been pending Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, 
Monday, Tuesday--6 days, 7 days it is pending, and they will not give 
us a vote, an up-or-down vote on the Kyl amendment. It is as simple as 
that.
  The signal is that we are not going to consider any amendments. In 
fact, the statement is that we are not going to consider any 
amendments. Let us go straight and see if this underlying bill has a 
60-vote cloture; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond to that. I will 
respond to the distinguished majority leader. We have had three votes 
on Frist-Reid, Bingaman, and the other was--anyway, we have had three 
amendments, and they are amendments that we would be happy to sit down 
and discuss, as I indicated earlier, and--the other is the Alexander 
amendment, thank you--sit down and find a way we can proceed.
  We have Mikulski-Warner, Dorgan-Snowe-Burns, the Bond amendment, I 
think it is Collins, Brownback-Lieberman have an amendment, Stevens-
Leahy have an amendment. So there are some amendments we could work on.
  But let me just say this: We are happy to try to work something out. 
It is my belief--and people could disagree. It is certainly everyone's 
right to disagree. I don't think some of these amendments, some of 
these amendments I have talked about, would take away what I call the 
integrity of the bill. But I do say to my friend--and he is my friend, 
the distinguished majority leader--we have had example after example in 
the last many years where there is legislation on this floor and we are 
not allowed to offer amendments. We offer them once in a while, we 
don't get votes on those, and we are not allowed to offer amendments.
  As my mother would say, they are getting a taste of their own 
medicine.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, again, I would ask--the Kyl amendment was 
not tabled, so it is the pending amendment. And I would ask if the 
other side would be willing to give us a rollcall vote on that 
amendment. It is not tabled at this juncture.
  Mr. REID. The answer is no.
  Mr. FRIST. The answer is no. That is the first one.
  Let us go to the Mikulski amendment, the next one that has been 
pending for X number of days, and I would ask that we consider the 
Mikulski amendment and take it to a vote and vote on it right now.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I said just a few minutes ago, I would be 
happy to have the two managers, with the appropriate staff--I have 
listed a number of amendments here: Mikulski-Warner-Snowe, Dorgan-
Burns, Bond, Collins, Brownback, Stevens-Leahy, maybe the Allard 
amendment, which I haven't read in its entirety, but I think that is 
appropriate. I think what we should do--there are a number of these, 
and you may have some others on the other side that we could work out 
and set up a sequence of when we should vote on these, how much time 
should be used in debate. I would be happy to do that.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I think it is clear. We are seeing in 
essence a stonewalling of the bill on the other side, an important bill 
that is of national security. There are four amendments--the Kyl-Cornyn 
amendment is the official amendment. We are being denied an up-or-down 
vote. The next one is Isakson; we are ready to vote on that. The next 
one is Dorgan; we are ready to vote on that. The next one is Mikulski; 
we are ready to vote on that. We are ready to vote on all four of 
those.
  What it sounds like to me is that the Democratic leader wants to pick 
our amendments and then we will consider and we will think about it, 
knowing--knowing--that we have Tuesday night, Wednesday, Thursday, and 
Friday to complete this bill. We are making no progress whatsoever 
because they are not allowing us to vote on amendments in the order 
that they are there. So it is apparent to me--and I agree, we will let 
the managers work on it, but it is apparent to me that the Democrats 
are not serious about passing a bill that affects the security of this 
Nation.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Democrats are very serious about passing 
a bill that affects the security of this Nation--this legislation and 
other legislation but particularly this legislation. We believe that 
the first provision of this legislation, which we talked about from the 
very beginning, is border security, security for our Nation. This 
legislation that is now before the Senate will do that. But in addition 
to that, we want enforcement plus.
  So as I have indicated, we want to pass the legislation right now. We 
would be happy to vote on this bill right now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill before the 
Senate be moved to third reading right now and vote on it.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it would be a travesty of the procedures 
of the Senate to vote on this bill without giving Senators an 
opportunity to file amendments. It would just be--it is hard to find 
the right characterization--a travesty, unheard of, unthinkable, 
unprecedented, idiotic--strike idiotic; the Supreme Court has that word 
for its own--but our procedure is to vote on amendments.
  Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Democratic leader if he would 
agree to start voting tomorrow morning at 9:30 on the list of 
amendments he identified. Senator Leahy and I are prepared to work 
through the night and start voting tomorrow morning at 9:30 on those 
amendments.
  Mr. REID. Those that I mentioned?
  Mr. SPECTER. The ones you mentioned.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to work with our manager, and with Senator 
Kennedy, and come up with the sequence of how we should vote on these 
and how much time should be spent on each amendment. I would be happy 
to vote on that.
  Mr. SPECTER. May we start the voting tomorrow morning at 9:30?
  Mr. REID. I don't know; 9:30, or sometime tomorrow morning, if we 
work out a sequence on these. That would be fine with me.
  Mr. SPECTER. So we will start voting tomorrow morning sometime on the 
sequence of amendments that you have identified. And may we carry that 
further on other amendments which are pending? You haven't identified 
any other amendments----
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the courtesy 
to colleagues here should be at least to include the ones that are 
pending that I

[[Page 4794]]

have read: Kyl-Cornyn, Dorgan, and Mikulski, that have been pending for 
days and days, rather than allowing the Democratic leader to cherry-
pick amendments to vote on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the use of words of the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee--``travesty, unprecedented, 
unthinkable''--whatever those were, those are words I am going to 
remember. I should have come up with those before on all the many times 
that we were unable to offer amendments on legislation that was pending 
before the Senate. But I think, as usual, the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee did an outstanding job of describing what 
happens when people are not allowed to offer amendments. We are experts 
at recognizing when we are not able to offer amendments.
  As I say, again, we have a number of amendments we would be happy to 
vote on. My friend, the majority leader, said he wanted to add in those 
that are pending, and we could not agree to that.
  Mr. SPECTER. Could I ask the distinguished Democratic leader if we 
can establish a procedure where the distinguished ranking member and 
I--we are the managers of the bill--go through the list of amendments 
and decide a sequencing of votes on these amendments--there must be 
more than those identified by the Senator from Nevada--and try to get 
the bill rolling with the votes, as you say, starting sometime tomorrow 
morning?
  Mr. REID. I have the greatest confidence in our ranking member, Pat 
Leahy. I have spoken in his behalf on this floor so many times I can't 
count it, but we have, in addition to Senator Leahy, 44 other members 
of our caucus. I am not going to give you and Senator Leahy carte 
blanche as to what amendments would be offered and in what order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Specter, would you yield for 1 minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has the floor.
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to my friend, the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico, for a statement of 1 minute or 2 minutes, whatever he 
cares to speak.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I didn't want to ask you because what I was going to 
say you wouldn't like.
  Mr. REID. I may not like what you say, but I like you.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much. I tell you, I really cannot 
believe what I heard here today. I have been here 34 years, and I 
cannot believe what I have heard today. I have heard a minority leader 
say we are peeved because we have not had what we think is a fair shake 
over the last couple of years since you have been running this place, 
so we are going to manage this bill from the minority leader chair, and 
there are going to be no amendments considered unless the minority, the 
ranking minority Member of the Senate puts his imprimatur on them.
  Mr. LEAHY. Imprimatur.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No matter how important the bill is--imprimatur, no 
matter what it is. I said it the Italian way. You said it the French 
way. You all know what it meant: stamp of approval. Stamp of approval.
  I have never heard of such a thing, never saw Senators standing 
around--they were in awe. What is he talking about?
  The bill that is before us, he likes. He has had a caucus, and those 
Senators on the other side said this is a neat bill, this is what we 
want to pass, and we sure don't want any amendments offered and voted 
on that stir up that thing we like so much to any extent because we 
don't want to get our Senators in any trouble. We don't want them 
voting on any of these kinds of things that muddle up this bill. So our 
leader is going to stand up here and say we have just changed the 
Senate, and we are going to do it this way. There will be no amendments 
unless Harry Reid, elected as the minority leader of the Senate, says, 
``OK.''
  Fellow Senators, I don't believe it. As a matter of fact, I thought 
when the distinguished leader of the other side, who is my dear 
friend--dear friend, he knows that--when he got up and answered our 
leader and started with this business about minimum wage and these 
other things--I thought he had a nothing case. I thought, my God, he's 
dreaming them up. He has nothing to say.
  What does that have to do with this bill, the minimum wage, the way 
we didn't let amendments come up on that? It has nothing to do with 
this bill, one of the most important bills confronting America. It has 
been said that it is at the turning point of relationships between 
Mexico and America. And we have one Senator who has looked at the bill 
and said: It is good for our side of the aisle. We like it just like it 
is, and we don't care what the rules of the Senate are, there will be 
no amendments. We are in charge.
  I am sorry, Mr. Leader. You were right. You said it too mildly. I 
goofed up some words, but I said it right, and Senator Reid is not 
right on this one. He is right many times. This is not right. He is not 
right. He should not do this. The Senate should not let him do it.
  If there is some way to not let him do it, he should not be permitted 
to do it. He knows we can't do that. He knows we cannot do that. He is 
too smart about the rules of the Senate. He knows we cannot say he 
cannot do it. But the Senate should say he cannot do it. I am telling 
you Senators, Democrats and Republicans, you should say he cannot do 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have said nonchalantly, to put it in 
perspective, how much I appreciate the work of the members of the 
Judiciary Committee on this bill.
  I am not going to spend a lot of time on this other than to say I 
think it is so important that we understand the time people have spent 
on this issue. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has 
been working on this issue of immigration for 35 years. He has seen 
what has happened in years past with all the different pieces of 
legislation. I can remember legislative battles on the Senate floor 
that we had with disputes between him and Alan Simpson, the 
distinguished former Senator from Wyoming, who everyone knows was such 
a good Senator, with such a great sense of humor.
  Senator Leahy has, I think, done such an admirable job of being 
ranking member on this committee.
  We have gotten work done on this committee that no one ever expected 
could be done. And the principal reason that work was able to be 
accomplished is because of the relationship that was developed between 
the chairman and ranking member, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy.
  If someone had come to me a month ago and said we would be in the 
status we are on this immigration bill, I would have said: No, I don't 
think that could be accomplished. I do not think we can get a bill out 
of that committee.
  But as I have said publicly, and certainly I have said it to the 
distinguished majority leader, I thought his bill alone, dealing with 
enforcement only, was inappropriate and not good. I was surprised--but 
pleasantly surprised--with the work product that came out of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Even when the distinguished majority leader said that he and the 
ranking member would work during the week that we had off to see if 
they could come up with a proposal, I kept checking with Senator Leahy 
and other members of the Judiciary Committee. And they felt there was a 
lot of movement.
  When that committee met on Monday, there were compromises made, and a 
bipartisan bill came before the Senate; again, pleasantly surprising me

[[Page 4795]]

and, to me, proving that when people work together to accomplish a goal 
and there is a partnership between those leading the committee, members 
of the committee usually go along with that leadership as they did in 
this instance.
  I appreciate the good work, and I support this legislation.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the standing rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Specter 
     substitute amendment No. 3192.
         Patrick J. Leahy, Edward M. Kennedy, Robert Menendez, 
           Frank R. Lautenberg, Joseph I. Lieberman, Carl Levin, 
           Maria Cantwell, Barack Obama, Tom Harkin, Hillary 
           Rodham Clinton, John F. Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, 
           Richard Durbin, Charles E. Schumer, Harry Reid, and 
           Daniel K. Akaka.

  Mr. REID. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate has taken significant and 
constructive steps over the past week toward fixing our Nation's broken 
immigration system. On March 27, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
reported a comprehensive and bipartisan package that is tough but 
smart.
  We sent to the Senate a bill that includes critical law enforcement 
and border security measures--tougher than the bill introduced by the 
majority leader earlier last month. Our bill, which was passed by a 
strong bipartisan 12-to-6 vote in committee, also includes realistic 
solutions for the problem of the millions of undocumented presently 
living inside our borders. We do not offer these aliens amnesty but 
create an incentive for them to come out of the shadows, register, and 
earn the opportunity to obtain legal status over the course of 11 
years.
  Over the past week, we have taken strides to see these proposals 
passed into law. I thank the many Senators who have come to the floor 
to speak in support of the committee bill. Senators McCain and Kennedy, 
who did the hard work of drafting many of these measures, have made 
strong statements explaining why the committee bill is not an offer of 
amnesty but represents an earned path to legalization and eventual 
citizenship. Senator Feinstein spoke about how this bill is tough on 
enforcement but pragmatic in its temporary worker and legalization 
programs.
  I thank Senator Durbin for his eloquent statement last week 
describing the DREAM Act, which is included in the committee bill. 
Senator Lincoln, Senator Salazar, and Senator Obama have all come to 
speak in favor of the ``enforcement-plus'' measures in the bipartisan 
bill.
  We have voted to approve several amendments that further strengthen 
the bill. Senator Bingaman's amendment to bolster national security by 
assisting local law enforcement in border States was approved 
overwhelmingly yesterday. So was Senator Alexander's amendment to 
strengthen citizenship programs, and last week, we passed a Frist-Reid 
amendment to study the tragic deaths occurring at the border between 
the United States and Mexico.
  I hope we will vote next on the important amendment offered by 
Senator Mikulski with a long list of cosponsors from both sides of the 
aisle. The Mikulski amendment will bring relief to employers by easing 
the shortfall of seasonal workers.
  I hope we will also vote on amendments that will be offered by 
Senator Bill Nelson to add additional enforcement provisions to the 
Committee bill.
  We have before us an opportunity to take a historic vote on a 
realistic and reasonable system for immigration. Our bill protects 
America's borders, strengthens enforcement, and remains true to 
American values. We should pass this bill this week.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, I speak on the Specter-Leahy 
substitute to S. 2454, the Frist border security bill.
  At the present time, the Frist bill contains no amnesty for illegal 
aliens. However, if the Specter-Leahy substitute is adopted, it would 
effectively attach a massive amnesty for 8 to 12 million illegal aliens 
and provide those illegal aliens with a path to U.S. citizenship. 
According to immigration experts, the pending substitute amendment--
with its guest-worker program and amnesty for undocumented aliens--
would open the gates to 30 million legal and illegal immigrants over 
the next decade.
  I oppose this amnesty proposal--absolutely and unequivocally. I urge 
the Senate to pass a clean border security bill like the House did--
without amnesty, without a guest-worker program, and without an 
increase in the annual allotment of permanent immigrant visas.
  For more than 4 years, the Nation has wondered how 19 terrorists 
managed to penetrate our border defenses to carry out the September 11 
attacks. It chills the blood to think of those terrorists crossing our 
borders not once, but several times, in the months before the attack--
easily outsmarting our border security checks to plot their dastardly 
scheme. They walked among us as tourists, students, and business 
travelers. Three of them even stayed in the United States as illegal 
aliens.
  Today, more than 4 years later, our country remains dangerously 
exposed to terrorists seeking to penetrate our border defenses. Since 
September 2001, an estimated 2 million new illegal immigrants have 
successfully beaten our border and interior security, and are now 
settled in the United States. That's 2 million new illegal immigrants 
since the Government pledged to regain control of the border after the 
9/11 attacks.
  Our immigration agencies are plagued with management and morale 
problems. They still do not have an exit-entry system with 
interoperable, biometric watch lists to accurately identify who is 
entering the country. We still cannot tell who is leaving the country. 
The requirement for foreign visitors to use biometric, machine-readable 
passports continues to be delayed, exempting millions of aliens each 
year from background checks. The administration, still, stubbornly 
refuses to support the resources our border and interior enforcement 
agencies need to effectively do their jobs.
  Meanwhile, the immigrant population continues to surge. The Center 
for Immigration Studies calculates that 1.5 million immigrants are 
settling both legally and illegally in the United States each year. The 
U.S. Census Bureau projects that immigration will be a major cause of 
the population of the United States increasing to 400 million people in 
less than 50 years.
  The National Research Council estimates that the net fiscal cost of 
this massive immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per 
year, with the infrastructure of our Nation--our schools, our health 
care system, our transportation and energy networks--increasingly 
unable to absorb this untenable surge in the population.
  Many tout the additional border and interior enforcement personnel 
authorized since September 2001, but the President's budget has not 
come anywhere close to funding those authorizations. Homeland security 
expenditures have been capped at levels that prohibit the Congress from 
adequately filling the gaps. Senator Gregg and I have had to fight for 
every additional nickel and dime that goes into our border security. It 
is never enough.
  Immigration enforcement in the United States remains decidedly half-
hearted. We are pulling our punches. Tougher border security mandates 
are signed into law, but then not fully funded. Statutory deadlines are 
set, but then indefinitely postponed. Undocumented aliens are denied 
Social Security cards, but then issued driver's licenses and taxpayer 
identification numbers. Employers are warned not to hire illegal labor, 
but then allowed to sponsor, without penalty, their illegal workforce 
for legal status. Funds are not requested to perform even the barest 
level of work site enforcement. We send troops abroad ostensibly so 
that we don't have to fight terrorists

[[Page 4796]]

on American streets, but then we turn a blind eye to millions of 
unauthorized, undocumented, unchecked aliens--any one of whom could be 
a potential terrorist.
  When lawmakers and the so-called pundits comment that our current 
system is unworkable, it's because we haven't really tried to make it 
work. The contradictions in our immigration policies are undeniable. 
Lawmakers decry illegal immigration, but then advocate amnesty 
proposals which only encourages more illegal immigration. Advocates may 
try to distance themselves from that word--``amnesty''. They may 
characterize their proposals as ``guest worker'' programs or 
``temporary visas'', but the effect is the same--to waive the rules for 
law-
breakers, and to legalize the unlawful actions of undocumented workers 
and the businesses that illegally employ them.
  Amnesties are the dark and sinister underbelly of our immigration 
process. They tarnish the magnanimous promise of a better life 
enshrined on the base of the Statue of Liberty. They minimize the 
struggle of all those who dutifully followed the rules to come to this 
country, and of all those who are still waiting abroad to immigrate 
legally. Amnesties undermine that great egalitarian and American 
principle that the law should apply equally and fairly to everyone. 
Amnesties perniciously decree that the law shall apply to some, but not 
to all.
  Amnesties can be dangerous, dangerous proposals. Amnesties open 
routes to legal status for aliens hoping to circumvent the regular 
security checks. By allowing illegal aliens to adjust their status in 
the country, we allow them to bypass State Department checks normally 
done overseas through the visa and consular process. One need only look 
to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, where one of the terrorist 
leaders had legalized his status through an amnesty, to clearly see the 
dangers of these kinds of proposals.
  Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing 
problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders, in the interior, and in its 
processing of immigration applications. It only took 19 temporary visa 
holders to slip through the system to unleash the horror of the 
September 11 attacks. The pending proposal would shove 30 million legal 
and illegal aliens--many of whom have never gone through a background 
check--through our border security system, in effect, flooding a 
bureaucracy that is already drowning. It's a recipe for utter disaster.
  Amnesties beget more illegal immigration--hurtful, destructive 
illegal immigration. They encourage other undocumented aliens to 
circumvent our immigration process in the hope that they too can 
achieve temporary worker status. Amnesties sanction the exploitation of 
illegal foreign labor by U.S. businesses, and encourage other 
businesses to hire cheap and illegal labor in order to compete.
  President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the 
time, I supported amnesty based on the same promises we hear today--
that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement would 
stem the flow of illegal immigration. It didn't work then, and it won't 
work today. The 1986 amnesty failed miserably. After 1986, illegal 
immigrant population tripled from 2.7 million aliens, to 4 million 
aliens in 1996, to 8 million aliens in 2000, to an estimated 12 million 
illegal aliens today.
  In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after amnesty, 
waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers. The result is always the 
same: For every group of illegal aliens granted amnesty, a bigger group 
enters the country hoping to be similarly rewarded.
  The pending substitute amendment embodies this same flawed model. 
It's more of the same: More amnesties, more guest worker programs, more 
unfunded mandates on our immigration agencies. We ought to be focusing 
on how to limit the incentives for illegal immigration, and erase the 
contradictions in our immigration policies that encourage individuals 
on both sides of the border to flout the law and get away with it.
  What's backwards about the pending substitute amendment is that it is 
actually rewarding illegal aliens. It rewards illegal behavior. It 
authorizes illegal aliens to work in the country. It grants illegal 
aliens a path to citizenship. It pardons employers who illegally employ 
unauthorized workers. It even repeals provisions in current law 
designed to deny cheaper, in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.
  The pending amendment is a big welcome mat for illegal immigrants. It 
is a misguided and dangerous proposal that would doom this Congress to 
the failures of previous Congresses.
  The economist John Maynard Keynes once described the qualification 
for an economist as being the ability to study the present, in the 
light of the past, for the purpose of looking into the future. Patrick 
Henry echoed those sentiments more than a century earlier when he said:

       I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that 
     is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the 
     future but by the past.

  Our Nation's experience shows that amnesties do not work. They are 
dangerous proposals that reward and encourage illegal immigration. Our 
experience shows that we cannot play games with our border security or 
American lives could be lost.
  I will oppose the Specter-Leahy substitute amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________