[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5721-5733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     SECURING AMERICA'S BORDERS ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2454, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Specter/Leahy amendment No. 3192, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Kyl/Cornyn amendment No. 3206 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     make certain aliens ineligible for conditional nonimmigrant 
     work authorization and status.
       Cornyn amendment No. 3207 (to amendment No. 3206), to 
     establish an enactment date.
       Isakson amendment No. 3215 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     demonstrate respect for legal immigration by prohibiting the 
     implementation of a new alien guest worker program until the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security certifies to the President and 
     the Congress that the borders of the United States are 
     reasonably sealed and secured.
       Dorgan amendment No. 3223 (to amendment No. 3192), to allow 
     United States citizens under 18 years of age to travel to 
     Canada without a passport, to develop a system to enable 
     United States citizens to take 24-hour excursions to Canada 
     without a passport, and to limit the cost of passport cards 
     or similar alternatives to passports to $20.
       Mikulski/Warner amendment No. 3217 (to amendment No. 3192), 
     to extend the termination date for the exemption of returning 
     workers from the numerical limitations for temporary workers.
       Santorum/Mikulski amendment No. 3214 (to amendment No. 
     3192), to designate Poland as a program country under the 
     visa waiver program established under section 217 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act.
       Nelson (FL) amendment No. 3220 (to amendment No. 3192), to 
     use surveillance

[[Page 5722]]

     technology to protect the borders of the United States.
       Sessions amendment No. 3420 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 3192), of a perfecting nature.
       Nelson (NE) amendment No. 3421 (to amendment No. 3420), of 
     a perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 1 hour for debate equally divided between the managers or their 
designees.
  The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for my colleagues who are in the Chamber and 
want to speak under the half hour that is allotted to us, I will leave 
time for them. I know Senator Leahy has a matter elsewhere, and I will 
speak and give him the time next.
  The committee bill that was reported from the Judiciary Committee on 
a bipartisan vote is a bill that virtually all Democrats support. We 
now are past that piece of legislation and on what we call the Martinez 
substitute. Virtually all Democrats support the Martinez substitute. I 
thought yesterday morning we were going today to be able to pass this 
important legislation. As I was walking from the caucus we had 
yesterday, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware said: I have to leave early; 
I sure hope we can get something worked out on this. That is how the 
Senate felt yesterday. I sure hoped we could work something out. But as 
the day went on, things didn't work out as well as we had anticipated.
  In the Senate, there are different ways of conducting filibusters. 
One is to have people stand and talk for long periods of time. The 
other is the ability Senators have, if they wish, to filibuster by 
virtue of amendment.
  I made a proposal to the distinguished majority leader that we would 
have the Judiciary Committee do the conferees and have a limited number 
of amendments and move on. Last night, Senator Frist said on the floor 
that he would have 20 amendments and, as we know from conversations we 
had on the floor, that was just the beginning. There would be more 
amendments. These amendments, of course, would be offered by those who 
oppose the Martinez legislation.
  The majority leader said last night--and I was surprised--that he 
thought he would vote no on cloture on the amendment that he offered. 
Certainly, there could be an argument made, even though I don't think 
it is a good one, that we are going to vote against the substitute 
amendment, the Specter legislation, as a result of the fact that the 
minority filed a cloture motion. That is not the case here. The cloture 
motion that is pending now was filed by the majority leader, he says, 
because no amendments have been offered. Why would we reward those who 
don't like the bill? Why would we reward those who want to kill this 
bill by amendments?
  I would hope that night has brought change, that night has turned to 
day, and that there will be those on a bipartisan basis who will 
support this invocation of cloture. That would be the right thing to 
do. To do so takes courage, I know, but it would be the right thing to 
do.
  Virtually all Democrats support the Martinez legislation. This bill 
is supported by wide-ranging groups: the Catholic bishops, the Chamber 
of Commerce, civil rights groups, human rights groups, La Raza--on and 
on with groups that support this legislation. This legislation is good 
legislation, national security, real security, border security. It 
gives guest workers the opportunity to come to America with dignity. 
Twelve million people would no longer have to live in the shadows.
  Franklin Roosevelt said it a lot better than I could in 1938, when he 
said: My fellow immigrants, remember always that all of us, and you and 
I especially, are descended from immigrants.
  General George Washington, in a letter in 1783, said:
  The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and 
respectable stranger but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations 
and religions whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our 
rights and privileges if, by decent and proprietary conduct, they 
appear to merit the enjoyment.
  That is what this is all about--Franklin Roosevelt, George 
Washington. Let's vote for cloture and move on, have a day of 
celebration.
  I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, the distinguished 
ranking member of this committee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic 
leader. I thank him for his statement. I also wish to commend him for 
the work he has done, both he and the distinguished deputy leader, in 
trying to bring us to this point. I know how hard the distinguished 
senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, has 
worked to pass a bill. I have been proud to work with him.
  I was encouraged this week that the majority leader and other Senate 
Republicans moved in our direction--a good direction--by recognizing 
that we need a solution to the problems posed by having millions of 
undocumented immigrants inside our borders. Many of us believe that 
immigration reform, to have any chance to succeed, needs to be 
comprehensive, with strong enforcement of border security matched with 
fair and effective steps to bring millions of hard-working people out 
of the shadows and provide them a path to citizenship and a full 
measure of America's promise.
  The bill now being proposed by the majority leader is not as 
comprehensive or as good as that produced by the Judiciary Committee in 
that it leaves many among us out of the equation and may have the 
perverse effect of driving millions further underground. I thought the 
bipartisan Judiciary Committee bill represented a better balance of 
strong enforcement of our borders with fair reforms that honored human 
dignity and American values. I will continue to work for a bill and a 
law that is fair to all. We all agree that it will be tough on 
security, but it also has to acknowledge our American values and, above 
all, human dignity.
  The House-passed bill and the original Frist bill were overly 
punitive. But wisely, in our deliberations in the Judiciary Committee 
and in the alternative now being proposed, we have rejected the 
controversial provisions that would have exposed those who provide 
humanitarian relief, medical care, shelter, counseling, and other basic 
services to the undocumented to possible prosecution under felony alien 
smuggling provisions. That was a cruel, cruel amendment, and I am glad 
it is gone. You can't tell those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, 
those who shelter people, that they are going to become felons for 
doing so.
  We rejected the proposal to criminalize mere presence in an 
undocumented status in the United States, which would trap people in a 
permanent underclass. Those provisions understandably sparked 
nationwide protests and are being viewed as anti-Hispanic and anti-
immigrant. They are inconsistent with American values. As one who is 
only one generation from immigrant grandparents, I am glad we removed 
those.
  I fear that the arbitrary categorization of people in the current 
proposal is not fair to all. I would not want us to set bureaucratic 
hurdles and arbitrary timeframes that will serve negatively to continue 
an underclass in American and drive people underground. The purpose of 
the path to citizenship is to bring people into the sunshine of 
American life and into law-abiding status so that they abide by all our 
laws. That will allow our enforcement resources to be focused on real 
security concerns. Sadly, those across the aisle have refused to 
proceed on the bipartisan Committee bill so this alternative proposal 
is an effort to garner additional support from the Majority Leader and 
others but it comes at some expense. He opposed the Specter-Leahy-Hagel 
amendment but now supports the Frist amendment, which he graciously 
called the Hagel-Martinez amendment. The Majority Leader called it a 
``negotiated compromise.''
  I was not a party to those negotiations. Given the successful 
Republican opposition and obstruction of the bipartisan Committee bill, 
I have now joined in efforts to improve the Frist amendment and the 
Hagel-Martinez

[[Page 5723]]

amendment. I am working with Senator Obama and Senator Durbin to 
improve that measure.
  I do not in any way disparage the efforts of my friends from Nebraska 
and Florida. I appreciate their efforts. I know that they had indicated 
their support for the bipartisan Committee bill. In fact, a majority of 
Senators supported the bipartisan Committee bill. Rather, they are 
trying to point a way toward the best possible legislation that can 
achieve not just a majority but a supermajority of support within the 
current Senate.
  I will support the majority leader's motion for cloture on the motion 
to commit. That will bring the Frist amendment before the Senate, and I 
will continue to work for bipartisan, comprehensive, smart, tough, and 
fair immigration reform.
  I was surprised to hear the Majority Leader say last night that he 
was considering opposing his own motion. We should have invoked cloture 
yesterday on the bipartisan Committee bill. I hope that we do so today 
on the Frist motion on the Frist amendment.
  I appreciate that for those undocumented immigrants who can prove 
they have been in the U.S. for more than five years, the path to 
citizenship that we voted out of Committee would still govern. To earn 
status and eventual citizenship, the immigrant must undergo background 
checks, work, pay taxes, pay fines, and learn English. That is not an 
amnesty program. The Republican Leader has now reversed his position 
and supports those provisions. That is progress. In addition, the bill 
we will be considering continues to contain the Ag Jobs bill and the 
DREAM Act, and the amendments the Senate voted to add to the bipartisan 
Committee bill, including the Bingaman enforcement amendment and the 
Alexander citizenship amendment.
  Those undocumented immigrants who have been here for two to five 
years would, under the provisions of the new bill, have to leave the 
U.S. and seek approval to return and to work under a temporary status 
for four years. They could eventually seek legal permanent status, 
probably after a total of 8 to 10 years, and only after those who have 
``seniority'' to them by being in the group that has been in the U.S. 
for more than five years. Thus, this new grouping of people is treated 
under a combination of rules drawn from a bill introduced by the senior 
Senator from Nebraska and the Kyl-Cornyn bill. Perhaps those who 
negotiated this scheme will garner the support of Senator Kyl and 
Senator Cornyn and others with whom they have been working.
  At least, this new categorization preserves a potential pathway to 
regularized status. The test will be whether it is made so onerous by 
its implementation that those in this designated category will come 
forward at all. We will all need to work to make that a reality so that 
they know that we value them, their families and their hard work.
  The most recent arrivals, those immigrants after January 1, 2004, are 
offered no special treatment. I was concerned about similar aspects of 
the Committee bill. There are no incentives to come forward. They are 
merely told to leave the U.S. and apply for one of the limited visas 
that will be authorized. They could try to come back as legal temporary 
workers.
  If we do not, I worry that the Majority Leader's announcement of a 
``breakthrough'' will have the unintended effect of having created a 
false impression and false hopes. I commend him for changing his 
position over the course of the last week. I am delighted that he and 
others who had been opposing comprehensive immigration reform with a 
path to citizenship are joining us in the effort. But an announcement 
is not the enactment of a new law. I urge people, especially the 
undocumented, to remember that. We are still a long way from enacting 
fair, comprehensive and humane immigration reform. None has yet passed 
the Senate. And certainly fair immigration reform has not passed the 
House. The cruelest joke of all would be to raise expectations and 
false hopes by premature talk of a solution when none has yet been 
achieved, especially if it remains elusive and that promise is not 
fulfilled.
  So while I am glad that some Republicans have dropped their 
opposition to establishing a path to citizenship for many, I worry that 
many others may be left behind. I also urge everyone concerned about 
the lives of those who are undocumented to remain cautious and focused 
on enacting a law, and on what it will provide in its final form. It 
would be wrong to just pass a bill that ends up serving as a false 
promise to those who yearn to be part of the promise of a better life 
that is America.
  Our work on immigration reform is a defining moment in our history. 
We are writing laws that will determine people's lives and what it is 
that America stands for. I continue to urge the Senate to rise to the 
occasion and act as the conscience of the Nation. I will continue to 
work on immigration reform so that the laws we enact will be in keeping 
with the best the Senate can offer the Nation and the best that America 
can offer to immigrants. I hope that our work will be something that 
would make my immigrant grandparents proud, and a product that will 
make our children and grandchildren proud.
  There will be more rallies around the country next week by thousands 
of people in cities across the United States. They know what we 
Senators now know--our immigration system is broken and we need to fix 
it. We need to fix it with effective, comprehensive reforms. The 
question is still open whether the Senate is committed to making real 
immigration reform.
  I have said from the outset that Democratic Senators could not pass a 
good immigration bill on our own. With fewer than 50 Democratic 
Senators, we will need the support of Republican Senators if the Senate 
is to make progress on this important matter.
  The majority leader had often spoken of allowing two weeks for Senate 
debate of this important matter. We now approach the end of that work 
period. I had hoped we would be farther along. When the Senate did not 
complete work on the lobbying reform bill on schedule--because 
Republicans refused to vote on the port security amendment--it cut into 
time for this immigration debate. When the majority leader decided to 
begin the debate with a day of discussion of the Frist bill, we lost 
more time. We were left then with one week, not two. We have lost time 
that could have been spent debating and adopting amendments when some 
Republicans withheld consent from utilizing our usual procedures over 
the last days. We have endured the false and partisan charges of 
obstruction came from the other side. We have experienced seemingly 
endless quorum calls without debate or action.
  I thank the Democratic leader for his efforts. He has been working 
for a comprehensive, realistic and fair immigration bill. We still are. 
I regret that over the last several days some tried to make this into a 
partisan fight. I hope that we are now able to draw back together in a 
bipartisan effort to pass a good bill that becomes a good law.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as soon as the distinguished chairman 
finishes his remarks, I will yield 8 minutes to Senator Durbin, and 
following his statement, 8 minutes to the ranking member, Senator 
Kennedy. If a Republican comes in between, that is fine with us. So 8 
minutes to both Senators Durbin and Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Before the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, 
leaves the floor, I would like his attention for a minute. He has to 
leave because he has other commitments. First, I congratulate him on 
the work he has done on this bill. I congratulate him on the work he 
has done in his 31 years in the Senate generally, but especially in the 
last 15 months, when he and I have worked together on the Judiciary 
Committee. I wanted to say this while he was still on the floor.
  As chairman, I am committed to make this immigration bill the No. 1 
priority of the Judiciary Committee. When we are unable to complete 
action on this bill today, as it now appears, I

[[Page 5724]]

want everyone to know when we come back after the recess, this is our 
No. 1 priority. We succeeded in the Judiciary Committee, where 
everybody thought we would fail. Senator Kennedy was on the committee 
and Senator Durbin was on the committee. I mention them because they 
are in the Chamber. We were given an impossible deadline, but we met 
it. We met it by having a marathon markup on a Monday, which is unheard 
of around here--especially a Monday after a recess. We did it by voting 
57 times. We had in that marathon markup 14 rollcall votes and 43 voice 
votes.
  We had a lot of tough votes, but we finished the bill and we reported 
it to the Senate. We are going to go back to work on this bill because 
if the full Senate cannot find the answer, then the Judiciary Committee 
is going to find the answer. We are going to return to the floor of the 
Senate a bill which I believe the Senate will find acceptable, and we 
will set forth procedures that I think the full Senate will find 
acceptable. That is the commitment.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield a moment on that, I have 
commended the Senator before for his indefatigable leadership. He 
worked extraordinarily hard. I commit to the senior Senator from 
Pennsylvania that on the Democratic side we will continue to work with 
him on any amount of time he needs in committee. Our committee 
demonstrated that we can produce a bipartisan bill. We will continue to 
work with him in any way necessary to finish this. I agree with him 
that it is important. On this of the aisle, we will continue that work.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished ranking member.
  Addressing the situation generally as to what we face now on the 
immigration bill, I think it is most unfortunate, really unacceptable, 
that the compromise arrangement has fallen through. I believe this 
legislation is vital for America's interests, vital for our national 
security interests, vital for our economic interests, and vital for our 
humanitarian interests.
  The agreement has been decimated, has fallen through, because of 
partisan politics. Regrettably, partisan politics plays too large a 
role on both sides of the aisle, with Democrats and Republicans, and 
there is more concern about political advantage in this situation--as 
it is in many situations--than there is on public policy and the public 
welfare. The procedures for not allowing tough votes, regrettably--that 
practice has been undertaken by both Democrats and Republicans. I have 
been in the Senate for 25 years now, and this has been a repeated 
practice which I have noted at least from the past decade and a half. 
It has occurred even beyond that period of time. Both the Democratic 
and Republican leaders--minority leaders, but mostly leaders--have been 
in the position to do what is called ``fill the tree.''
  Senate procedures are arcane and complicated. I would not begin to 
try to explain them now. But the conclusion is that you can use the 
rules to avoid having votes come up, if you want to do it. It is called 
filling the tree. Republicans on this immigration bill have been 
stymied from offering amendments. But at the same time, on other bills, 
on prior days, Democrats had been stymied from offering amendments. So 
it is a matter of bipartisan blame.
  But what is happening is that the public interests are being damaged. 
A very similar situation occurred last year on the filibusters. The 
Democrats filibustered President Bush's judicial nominees in 
retaliation for tactics employed by Republicans to stymie President 
Clinton's nominees from having votes, from coming out of committee or, 
once out of committee, from having votes on the Senate floor. That 
impasse, that confrontation on judges, almost threatened to destroy a 
very vital part of the institution of the Senate, and that is the right 
of unlimited debate. Where the filibusters were used, in my view, 
inappropriately, consideration was given to changing the rules of the 
Senate to change the number of Senators necessary to cut off debate 
from 60, which is the current rule, to 51. Fortunately, we were able to 
avoid that confrontation.
  Now as I said to the distinguished minority leader in a private 
conversation, that reason is going to have to prevail, and Democrats 
and Republicans in the Senate are going to have to come together and 
stop this reprehensible practice of denying votes. We are sent here to 
vote. When a bill comes to the floor, as we reported the immigration 
bill out of committee, other Members are entitled to offer amendments 
to see if they can persuade 51 Senators to vote their way or, if 
cloture is necessary, to cut off debate, to see if they can get 60 
Senators to vote their way, and then to change a committee bill.
  The committee doesn't speak for the Senate. The committee makes a 
recommendation. The Senate must speak for itself, in accordance with 
our procedures, with 51 votes to pass amendments or a bill, or 60 votes 
if it involves cutting off debate. But it is totally an unacceptable 
practice to stymie a bill by refusing to give votes. That is what has 
happened here.
  In the negotiations between Senator Frist and Senator Reid yesterday, 
Senator Reid said the maximum number of votes that would be permitted 
was three. I don't think he was concrete on three, but he wasn't going 
to go much beyond three--perhaps, as a suggestion was made, there might 
be a compromise for six. But on the Republican side, Senators wanted to 
offer a minimum of 20 amendments. An arrangement could not be agreed 
upon and, obviously, Senator Frist could not accept three votes, or 
even six votes. The position was taken to avoid having Democratic 
Senators take tough votes. In committee, Republicans and Democrats took 
tough votes--57 votes, with 14 rollcall votes, during a marathon 
session on that Monday on the markup.
  It is an open secret that there are many people who do not want to 
have an immigration bill. I think it is a fair comment--although 
subject to being refuted--that there is advantage for the Democrats to 
have only the bill of the House of Representatives before the public, 
which provides only for border security, and which doesn't take care of 
the 11 million undocumented aliens. That bill has provoked massive 
rallies--500,000 people in Los Angeles, 20,000 people reportedly in 
Phoenix, and more rallies are coming. The view is--and I think it is 
accurate--that it is very harmful to the Republican Party to have the 
Hispanics in America angry with the Republican position, as taken by 
the House of Representatives, to have only border security and not have 
a program to accommodate the 11 million undocumented aliens.
  The Senate bill, of course, directs our attention to that bill, and 
the Judiciary Committee bill has a very rational, humanitarian, 
sensible approach--not amnesty, because there is not forgiveness, 
because these undocumented aliens have to pay a fine, have to pay back 
taxes, have to learn English, have to work for 6 years; they have to 
undertake many conditions in order to be on the citizenship track. With 
refinements put in by the Judiciary Committee, they are at the end of 
the line.
  Then, in order to achieve an accommodation, changes were made on 
suggestions by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez to modify that 
proposal, treating those who have been in the country more than 5 years 
differently from those who have been here less than 5 years. Frankly, I 
preferred the Judiciary Committee bill; I preferred our bill without 
amendments. But people have a right to make amendments. I was prepared 
to accept the compromise that brought into play the ideas of Senators 
Hagel and Martinez so we would have a bill. The issue that a legislator 
faces is not whether it is a bill he would prefer but whether the bill 
is better than the current system. In my mind, there is no doubt that 
had we moved forward with the compromise that was struck yesterday, it 
would be a vast improvement over the current system. It would secure 
the borders. It would provide a rational way to handle the 11 million 
undocumented aliens. It would provide a rational way to handle the 
guest worker situation. And it should have gone forward. It has not 
gone forward because

[[Page 5725]]

there is political advantage for the Democrats not to have an 
immigration bill, not to take tough votes, to have the opprobrium of 
the House bill, which is objected to by the Hispanic population, 
illustrated by the massive rallies, to have that as the Republican 
position. Contrasted with what would have happened had the Senate 
produced a bill which was bipartisan, which was sponsored by 
Republicans, then the opprobrium, the edge would have been taken from 
the House bill.
  So we are going to leave here, by all indications, without having 
completed action on the immigration bill or without having come to a 
point where we would have a definitive list of amendments, to have an 
agreement that on our return from the recess we could, in short order, 
finish the bill. That is totally unacceptable.
  Again, I emphasize that the partisanship exists on both sides of the 
aisle. When I say the Democrats are wrong on this bill to avoid hard 
votes, I say simultaneously that we Republicans have been wrong in the 
past to deny Democrats votes on amendments which they wanted to offer. 
The distinction has been made by some of my colleagues--and I think it 
is accurate--that they have been denied votes in most situations on 
matters where they are nongermane to the bill.
  Senator Reid mentioned stem cells, and I agree, we ought to resolve 
the stem cell issue. I don't know if there was ever a stem cell vote 
offered in a way which would be nongermane, but we ought not take up an 
issue such as stem cells on the Transportation bill, for example.
  There have been amendments offered by Democrats which were germane. 
They wanted to offer amendments which were germane, which have been 
denied.
  It is my hope that we can come together. I have already talked with 
the distinguished Democratic leader this morning saying that we ought 
to come to some agreement that neither side will use the technicalities 
at our disposal to deny the other side votes. The Democratic leader has 
been very lavish in praise in supporting the work Senator Leahy and I 
have done. That spirit of accommodation ought to be carried forward to 
the floor of the Senate when we consider matters such as this 
immigration bill. For the future, it is my hope that we will come 
together and stop this practice of denying votes to the other side.
  Again, my commitment is to make this immigration bill the first 
priority item for the Judiciary Committee when we return after the 
Easter recess because America needs immigration legislation reform.
  I inquire as to how much time our side has remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized for 8 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor weary--weary 
after 2 weeks of working on this historic legislation, both in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee and in the back rooms of the Senate Chamber 
and on the Senate floor; weary after a long, sleepless night thinking 
about how we might have done this better; weary with the knowledge that 
we come here this morning, having missed a historic opportunity. This 
opportunity is slipping through our hands like grains of sand.
  It is hard to imagine that we have reached this point when one looks 
at the people of goodwill who have tried to bring this bill to passage 
and completion.
  I first salute the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It 
took extraordinary courage for him to vote in favor of the bipartisan 
bill which came to the floor. He stuck with it. I thought he was fair 
in the way he handled his committee, and I thought we produced a good 
work product which I was proud to support.
  I salute the Senator from Massachusetts who, for decades, has made 
this cause, immigration reform, his passion. He has never given up. In 
the weeks we have spent up to this moment, his strength has been 
remarkable.
  On the Republican side, Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Senator 
Brownback, Senator DeWine, Senator Martinez, Senator Hagel, and so many 
others were bound and determined to defy the critics who said we 
couldn't come to a bipartisan agreement.
  Yesterday, for one brief moment, one shining moment, we believed we 
had a bipartisan agreement. Senator Martinez and Senator Hagel worked 
all night and put together an amendment, came to us on the Democratic 
side and said: Can you accept these modifications, and then can we move 
forward together? We agreed. We stood together.
  I think the most dangerous place in America for a politician is the 
front row of the St. Patrick's Day parade in the city of Chicago. I 
have been there. I have been pushed and shoved and elbowed aside by men 
and women who follow in the grand Chicago tradition of Dick Butkus and 
Brian Urlacher. But there is a second place I recall as the most 
dangerous for politicians in America, and it was in the press gallery 
yesterday as Senators were preening and priming themselves to appear 
before the cameras and announce we have an agreement, we have a bill, 
pushing one another aside to get to the microphone so they could 
announce the success of our efforts.
  I was there. I stood back and thought: There is plenty of time for 
congratulations. Let's wait until we have done something before we 
congratulate ourselves.
  Sadly, 24 hours have passed. The world has turned, and things have 
changed.
  I stand here today uncertain about where the Republican Party of the 
United States of America stands on the issue of immigration. I know 
where the House Republicans stand. They are very clear. It is a 
punitive, mean-spirited approach to immigration, which most Republicans 
in the Senate have rejected. The idea of charging volunteers, nurses, 
and people of faith who help the poorest among us with a felony if one 
of those poor people happens to be an undocumented immigrant is the 
ultimate. That is the position of the House Republicans.
  For the life of me, I don't know what the position of the Senate 
Republicans is on immigration. Their leader stood before us yesterday 
and accepted this bipartisan compromise, came before the cameras and 
said this was his bill, too. He filed a motion so that we could limit 
debate and move to final passage of this bill and announced last night 
that he would vote against his own motion.
  In the history of the United States, there was a political party 
known as the mugwumps. They were called mugwumps because people said 
they had their mug on one side of the face and their wump on the other. 
That is what I see when I look at the Senate Republican caucus. Where 
are they on immigration?
  I listened to Senator Sessions who has been open. He opposes 
immigration reform. He has 15 amendments. He wants to stop this 
process, slow it down. I watch as the leadership of the Senate 
Republican team files before the television cameras rejecting the very 
compromise their leader has embraced. Where are they? Who are they? And 
do they believe that the people across America, carefully following 
this debate because their faith, their future, and their family is at 
stake, are going to ignore the obvious, that in just a few moments, a 
vote will be taken on the floor of the Senate and Senate Republicans 
will march down and vote against the Senate Republican leader's motion?
  When it is all said and done, the House Republicans are very clear. 
They are opposed to immigration reform. They have taken the most 
punitive stand. But where do the Senate Republicans stand? We won't be 
able to tell after this vote. But I will tell you this: The people who 
are following this debate will know that the Senate Republicans did not 
stand for comprehensive immigration reform. There are heroes among 
them. I have listed some of them, and I will stand by them and defend 
them to any group because I do believe they are sincerely committed

[[Page 5726]]

to immigration reform. But when it comes to the majority of that 
caucus, when it comes to the leadership on that side, it is impossible 
to divine what their position is on this critical issue.
  The saddest part of it is this: Across America, millions of people 
are living in fear, living in the shadows, people who have come to me 
in tears because their children's future is at stake, people who have 
come to me crying because their mothers came to this country from 
Poland years ago and never filed the right papers and are technically 
illegal. These people wanted us to do something, to achieve something 
in the Senate, and we have failed. We have failed because the Senate 
Republican leadership will not say to its own membership: There is a 
limit as to how far you can take us with these debilitating amendments.
  Last night, the Senate Republican leader said all we want is about 20 
or so amendments. With 20 amendments and second-degree amendments, we 
would eat up a week of time just on the Republican amendments, and 
there is no promise it would end there.
  This was clearly a moment for the Senate Republican leader to step 
forward, not just at the microphone, but in his own caucus and say that 
we as a party are going to be counted as to whether we are really for 
this immigration reform.
  I think it is time, Mr. President, that we acknowledge the obvious. 
It is time for us as a nation to have comprehensive immigration reform 
with enforcement--enforcement on our borders and enforcement in places 
of employment--but also to give a legal pathway to those good people 
who want to be our fellow citizens, who want to share this dream in 
America.
  This morning we will not achieve it. And when the Senate Judiciary 
Committee chairman tells us we will return to this bill when we get 
back from the Easter recess, I don't have much hope that we will either 
have the time or the will to overcome what we have seen on the floor in 
the last several days.
  I will work, put every ounce of my strength into making it a success. 
But as I stand here today, I think we have allowed this historic 
opportunity to escape us.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois has 
consumed 8 minutes. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is an interesting time on the floor of 
the Senate. We just heard the most fascinating speech about 
fingerpointing I have heard in decades--fingerpointing from the other 
side that is trying to suggest they are blameless, absolutely without 
blame, because the Senate is stalled in its attempt to gain a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill.
  This is one Republican Senator who, several years ago, stepped across 
the aisle and stood with Senator Ted Kennedy in a clear recognition 
that something had to be done to deal with illegal foreign nationals in 
our country in a just, reasonable, humane, and legal way.
  To suggest that the Democratic caucus has not had conflict behind 
closed doors over the last week is, in fact, a false statement because 
today we see this veneered front. To suggest that they are without 
blame because the Senate for 1 week has stood still doing nothing 
because they would not allow amendments on the comprehensive bill? May 
I say shame on you? I am saying that because the veneer doesn't fit. It 
is paper thin like the front page of the legislation before us.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee worked its will, and it brought forth 
a bill to this floor. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best they could do? 
Absolutely, yes. Did they work hard? You darn bet they did. Does it 
have all the components in it that we would want for tough border 
security and control to contain our borders, to secure them? It must 
have that, and it does have that. Because I don't care how good the 
legislation is that I think I have created with a coalition of over 500 
groups of Hispanics and labor and agriculture over the last 5 years, as 
good as my legislation is, known as AgJOBS, it is not going to work if 
the border isn't secure. You have to stop the flow of illegals, and we 
do that. But we don't do it by pointing a finger at all of them and 
saying: You are all felons. We cause them to earn, in the course of 
years of hard work, the right to continue to work and, if they choose--
if they choose--to become an American citizen by another lengthy 
process. Is that unfair? Is that irresponsible? It is absolutely not. 
Was that created by Republicans? Yes, it was. By Democrats? Absolutely.
  So let me suggest that when the assistant minority leader stands up 
and says: No, not me, not us, not ours, that simply is not true. Yes, 
the Republican side is conflicted. Yes, we have differences. Yes, there 
were amendments. But those amendments, as would be the normal process 
on the floor of the Senate after a bill came out of committee, have 
been denied by that paper-thin veneer you have just heard this morning 
from the other side.
  Immigration has been and will always be a bipartisan issue. It must 
be. It should be. Is it to our advantage to make it partisan? 
Absolutely not. But some are now playing that game, and that in itself 
is most dangerous.
  I will continue to work with all of my colleagues to resolve this 
issue. It is fundamentally important to America that we do.
  Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, I said: America, turn and look 
at yourself in your mirror, and you will find a multiethnic, a 
multinational image. We as Americans are the phenomenal mosaic of the 
world, and we are because we have historically had an orderly, 
responsible immigration policy that didn't point fingers and didn't 
play partisan politics and worked its will. I must tell you there have 
been and there always will be those who got here yesterday who don't 
want those coming tomorrow. Yet America's great energy is simply that 
we continue to bring people from around the world who become Americans 
in search of the great American dream, who live under our 
constitutional structure, who embody it because of the new energy as a 
free citizen they employ. It is in itself the only Nation in the world 
that has been able to do that.
  I say, when I am out in Idaho and around the country, is it possible 
for you to become Japanese if you are not born one? Absolutely not. Or 
to become an Italian if you are not born one? You can't become that. 
But you can become an American. Why? Because this great country was 
never one nationality, never one religion; it was the place the world 
came to find freedom and to be able to use its individual energies 
underneath the framework of a constitutional system that established 
laws.
  What are we attempting to do here today? We are attempting to clarify 
a law, to strengthen a law, to make sure that the wonderful process we 
have seen throughout our history continues to be orderly and just and 
responsible.
  Who is to blame here? The U.S. Senate, the Congress of the United 
States, when, in 1986, they passed a law about immigration, but they 
didn't recognize in doing so that they were creating a natural magnet 
and they didn't control the border, dominantly to our south; and then 
again in 1996 we did the same thing and we didn't control the border. 
This great economic engine of ours became the magnet for the 
downtrodden to come to work, to earn a little money, to improve 
themselves. We took advantage of that, hopefully in a positive way, 
hopefully in a humane way--not always, but we did take advantage of it. 
Then, after 9/11, we awakened to this phenomenal reality that there 
were millions in our country who were illegal, and some of them were 
bad guys bent to do us harm. Now we are playing political games on the 
floor as to who is on first and who is on second on this issue. Shame 
on us. Because the veneer on the other side is just that: paper thin.
  This has been and will remain a bipartisan issue, it is an American 
issue, and it is responsible for this Senate to deal with it. It is 
right and proper under our rules that if someone has an amendment in 
disagreement to what I have done--and now I see my colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, who worked with me and introduced into 
the committee mark a very valuable component as it relates to American 
agriculture. We didn't play the

[[Page 5727]]

partisan game. We came together because she has in her State and in the 
great San Joaquin Valley, which is, without dispute, the greatest 
agricultural valley in the world, a true need to stabilize and build a 
legal workforce; and in Idaho, at the peak of our labor season, I have 
anywhere from 25,000 to 30,000 illegals. She has more illegals in one 
county in California working than I have in my entire State. Still, 
Senator Feinstein and I understand one thing very appropriately: that 
what we do must be legal, that American agriculture cannot build its 
strength on an illegal foundation, and it knows it, too. That is why we 
have worked with them to solve this problem.
  We think that within the committee bill, there is a solution. There 
are some on my side and on the other side who probably disagree with 
that, and there are amendments over here that would change what Senator 
Feinstein and I have proposed, and that is within the committee mark. I 
think I can defeat those amendments. I am certainly willing to debate 
them. It would be appropriate under the rules of the Senate that some 
of those amendments would be offered, but that has been denied. I am 
disappointed in that.
  I hope that over the course of the next 2 weeks, calm heads will 
prevail. I hope the idea of finger-pointing goes away. We all have a 
responsibility here, not only to our home States but to our Nation, to 
develop a comprehensive immigration reform policy to secure our borders 
for the sake of our Nation's security. That is what this Senate has 
attempted to do, and that is what we are now being denied. I don't 
believe that is the appropriate position for any of us.
  Immigration reform has been--let me repeat--and will always be and 
must be a comprehensive approach, a bipartisan issue where we work 
together to resolve what is in itself a major national issue of the 
day. Our citizens have asked that we do this. While they are divided by 
our effort in every way, we attempt to bring together that division in 
what we hope is a comprehensive, responsible, legal approach that first 
embodies national security and secondly, and as importantly, though, 
represents a balance for our economy, a reasonable and responsible 
approach toward humanity for those who come to work and for those who 
want to be citizens. In my opinion, that is a responsible position.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 8 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Chair tell me when I have 2 minutes remaining, 
please?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will so advise.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at this stage of the whole consideration 
of immigration reform, I wish to mention my friend and colleague, 
Senator McCain, whom I have had the good opportunity to work with--I 
have worked with many others but particularly with Senator McCain over 
the last 3 years--in terms of developing a comprehensive approach on 
this issue.
  There was a bipartisan group that came together, including members of 
our Judiciary Committee and people who had a particular interest who 
were outside of our committee. I am very grateful to them and the 
chairman of our committee, Senator Specter, and, as always, a valued 
friend and also a leader, Senator Leahy. I thank my own leader, Senator 
Reid, for all of his good work and counsel and advice. The Senator from 
Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and Senators Salazar, Menendez, Lieberman, and 
Obama have all been good supporters during this period of time.
  On the other side, Senators Graham, Brownback, DeWine, Martinez, and 
Hagel have worked very closely with us.
  Senator Feinstein has been a person of enormous knowledge, 
understanding, and awareness of the range of immigration issues, with 
very special attention to California, which presents such challenges. 
She has not only been in this debate and discussion an extraordinary 
ally, but to any debate and discussion on immigration and immigration 
reform, she brings a special dimension. She worked with Senator Craig 
in a very strong, bipartisan way in the initial proposal Senator McCain 
and I introduced. We recognized that the AgJOBS bill was enormously 
important. It had a few different approaches, but rather than making 
this issue more complicated, we did not include it. We welcomed it, but 
we had the leadership of Senator Feinstein and Senator Craig.
  So this has been a bipartisan effort in trying to bring about 
immigration reform. I will not review the very powerful and strong 
arguments about the border being broken and the need for our focus and 
attention on the border, about our national security interests and 
issues in trying to get it right, and about considering who comes to 
the United States and who does not come. As to our sense of humanity, I 
will speak about that for just a few minutes, in terms of how we are 
going to treat those who have come here and worked hard, played by the 
rules, who are devoted to their families and their religion, and who 
join the Armed Forces of our country and serve nobly.
  So I rise this morning recognizing that the Senate has failed to 
adopt urgently needed immigration reform, and in doing so, we failed in 
our duty to our Nation and our democracy and our American people. We 
only make progress on issues of civil rights and immigration when we 
have bipartisanship. We haven't had a great deal of bipartisanship over 
the recent past. We certainly did on this issue, and that is why it is 
doubly disappointing and sorrowful that we have missed the opportunity 
at this time. I believe we also failed our immigrant heritage and the 
11 million undocumented workers and families who looked to us for hope.
  Clearly, the obstacles to progress are many, but for those who are 
committed to immigration reform, this debate certainly is not over. We 
will continue, if not today, then tomorrow and in the days ahead 
because the battle must go on.
  As one who has been in the trenches on this issue since I first came 
to the U.S. Senate over 40 years ago and who has been a part of this 
effort to try to put into perspective the enormous magnet of America to 
people who look to it with hope and opportunity and progress and those 
who understand that we have to do this in an orderly and rational and 
reasonable and thoughtful way, there is always tension. But we are 
proudly a nation of immigrants, and I certainly believe we have lost an 
important chance and opportunity to make important progress on this 
issue.
  What is at stake is not just our security but our humanity as well. 
We can't set that aside. We vote today on our security but also on our 
humanity. We cast a vote on what Congress will do about Sheila, an 
undocumented immigrant originally from Cork, Ireland, who has lived on 
Cape Cod for the last 10 years. She left Ireland due to the economic 
depression. Now her whole life is here in the United States. Her 
citizen brother is fighting in Iraq. But upon petitioning for her, he 
found he had a 15- to 20-year wait. Sheila listened to her 
grandfather's funeral through a cell phone because she wasn't able to 
travel to Ireland. A talented musician, she has worked and paid taxes 
for the past decade as a carpet cleaner and a secretary.
  We vote today about what to do about William, who came to 
Massachusetts 14 years ago from Guatemala to make a better life for his 
family. He is a factory worker who has paid taxes for the past 14 
years. He has a 7-year-old son, David, with cerebral palsy. David is 
severely blind, disabled, and can't walk. William is his sole provider.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Chair would remind the 
Senator he has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am reminded now, in these last moments, 
Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, has been a courageous 
voice on these issues: Now is a historic moment for our country. We 
need to come together and enact immigration reform that protects our 
national security and upholds our basic human rights and dignity. That 
is the challenge before us.

[[Page 5728]]

  Fifty years ago President Kennedy wrote a book called ``A Nation of 
Immigrants.'' In this book--I will just mention a very brief part--he 
writes:

       In just over 350 years, a nation of nearly 200 million 
     people has grown up, populated almost entirely by persons who 
     either came from other lands or whose forefathers came from 
     other lands. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt reminded a 
     convention of the Daughters of the American Revolution, 
     ``Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I 
     especially, are descended from immigrants and 
     revolutionists.''
       As Walt Whitman said,
       ``These States are the amplest poem, Here is not merely a 
     nation but a teeming Nation of Nations.''
       To know America, then, it is necessary to understand this 
     peculiarly American social revolution. It is necessary to 
     know why over 42 million people gave up their settled lives 
     to start anew in a strange land. We must know how they met 
     the new land and how it met them, and, most important, we 
     must know what these things mean for our present and for our 
     future.

  Those words are as alive today as they were at that time. The 
challenge is here. We want to give assurances to those who have given 
us great support over this period of time that we are in the battle to 
the end.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am yielding 1 minute of my leader time to 
Senator Feinstein and 1 minute of my leader time to Senator McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer these words on behalf of 
Senator Boxer, my friend and colleague, and myself. Senator Craig said 
it correctly. Senator Boxer and I have more illegal people in one 
county than most Senators have in their entire State. Therefore, what 
happens here is of serious consequence for the people of California and 
for us as well.
  We are both going to vote for this motion to commit. We are going to 
vote for it with the hope that the ensuing weeks are going to enable 
some parts of it to be worked out more clearly.
  I serve on Judiciary. I serve on the Immigration subcommittee. The 
beauty of the original McCain-Kennedy legislation was that once you 
accepted that approach, you accepted an approach of balance which was 
simple and which was able to be carried out.
  My concern is by developing the three tiers of individuals, as the 
Martinez plan does, that you create a much more complicated scenario in 
terms of enforcement and therefore run the risk that it cannot be 
carried out well, particularly for those here for less than 2 years--
who are in the millions. They simply disappear into the fabric, once 
again, of America, and you have the same problem all over again.
  I hope during the 2 weeks cool minds will prevail and that we will be 
able to work on this legislation further. We have been on rather a 
forced march, a forced march in Judiciary to mark up a bill. There have 
been more than a half dozen guest worker plans in committee. It has 
been a difficult and complicated path.
  I urge that we come together as one body, that we work together as 
one body. I think the lives to be affected by what we do are perhaps 
more deeply affected than with virtually any other piece of 
legislation. Both Senator Boxer and I offer our time and our energy to 
try to help in this.
  We will vote yes on cloture. It is our hope a majority of this body 
will do so also.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 20 minutes on 
immigration.
  Immersed in the routines of daily life, many people don't make an 
extra effort to track legislation as it winds through Congress. It 
usually takes an issue that hits close to home before it motivates 
people to take notice.
  This issue has hit home to many. We have dived into a very passionate 
and emotional debate in the U. S. Senate. Our country was founded by 
immigrants, and continues to be a Nation of immigrants. We have 
benefited from the achievements of many new residents. And, today, 
people in foreign lands want to be a part of this great country.
  Generation after generation tirelessly pursues the American Dream. We 
should feel privileged that people love our country and want to become 
Americans. We are a wonderful nation, and it is evident by the number 
of people who want to come here.
  But it is hard to empathize with those who thumb their noses at the 
rule of law. Estimates say more than 11 million undocumented immigrants 
already live in the country. They deliberately bypassed the proper 
channels and broke our laws to enter the country.
  We are a nation of laws. Our country was founded on the rule of law. 
And now our welcome mat is being trampled on.
  I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I was a part of the 5-
week markup session. I voted against the committee bill. But I think we 
made great strides on the border security and interior enforcement 
titles.
  I supported amendments to provide more authority and resources to our 
State and local law enforcement. One of my amendments increased the 
number of ICE agents we have in each State. I supported amendments 
dealing with expedited removal and increased detention space.
  We enhanced border security and increased our manpower to patrol the 
border. We reformed the L visa program and the Temporary Protected 
Status program. We addressed the problem with countries which don't 
take back their illegal citizens by denying them visas.
  We did a lot of positive things. But these reforms will mean nothing 
if an amnesty in sheep's clothing goes forward.
  Some say that our enforcement-only approach in 1996 didn't work. Let 
me remind my colleagues that the 1996 bill contained measures that 
still have not been implemented. The best example is the entry-exit 
system. It is not fully operational because Congress and our 
bureaucrats keep delaying its implementation.
  The compromise before us may contain enforcement measures, but they 
mean nothing if Congress and the administration don't make the 
commitment to follow through. And our strong enforcement measures are 
worthless if we pardon every illegal alien.
  I was here in 1986. I voted for the amnesty during the Reagan years. 
I know now that it was a big mistake. I have been here long enough to 
know the consequences of rewarding illegal behavior.
  Let me take a moment to raise some concerns about the compromise 
before us.
  The compromise provides for a three-tier system. It puts illegal 
aliens into three categories. Those who have been here for 5 years or 
more automatically get a glide path to citizenship. Those who have been 
here for 2 to 5 years have to go home--at some point in the future--and 
re-enter through a legal channel. Those who have been here for less 
than 24 months are illegal aliens, and we assume that they will return 
to their home country.
  Some have estimated that there are 7.7 to 8.5 million illegal aliens 
who have been here for more than 5 years. That is more than 75 percent 
of the illegal population. But that is not all. The compromise says 
that the family of the illegal alien--their spouses and children--can 
also apply. It doesn't say that their family has to be in this country. 
In fact, those back in their home countries are now getting a free pass 
to cross the border. They, too, are on their way to a citizenship.
  Those in the second tier who are required to go home and re-enter 
through a legal channel won't go home. Why would they if their 
neighbors are getting citizenship? They will hold out for their reward. 
They will wait for Congress to pass another amnesty bill. We are 
sending a bad signal. We are saying some can get amnesty and some 
cannot.
  I know my colleagues say this isn't amnesty, but it is. I know some 
say that the alien has to pay their taxes, pay a fine, have worked for 
3 years, and learn English. They say that the aliens

[[Page 5729]]

are earning their citizenship. I respectfully disagree.
  Yes, an alien has to pay $2,000 to come out of the shadows. But 
individuals under 18 don't have to pay. And the fine probably won't 
cover the costs of implementing the program, nor will it cover the 
costs of a background check.
  I have said it before, and I repeat is now: $2,000 is chump change. 
These same people probably paid a smuggler $15,000 to get them across 
the border. We are selling citizenship.
  The proponents say that illegal aliens have to pay their taxes. Don't 
let them fool you. Sure, they have to pay all outstanding Federal and 
Sate taxes before their status is adjusted, but they only have to pay 
the taxes they owe for the 3 years that they are required to work. What 
about the other years? They have been here for at least 5. What about 
those under the age of 20 who are exempt from having to work? What if 
they work? Don't they have to pay their taxes?
  Another point about this provision on taxes is that it is going to be 
a burden on the IRS. As chairman of the Finance Committee, which 
oversees the IRS, I can tell you that the taxman is going to have a 
difficult time verifying whether an individual owes any taxes. It will 
be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot 
audit every single person in this country. We need to place the burden 
on the alien, not the Federal Government. We need to require them to 
come forward and show us their tax returns.
  When an alien applies for legal status, they have to prove that they 
have been working for 3 out of the last 5 years. If an illegal alien 
can't get their IRS records or an employer to attest to their working, 
then they can get a friend to attest. They can have anybody on the 
street sign a sworn affidavit to attest for them. That is fraud and 
corruption waiting to happen. Do you think the Federal Government is 
going to have time to check out their sources and prove their claims?
  The proponents of amnesty also say that the alien is not eligible if 
they do not meet certain health standards. It does not say that one has 
to undergo a medical exam. In fact, those who fall under the second 
tier, who have been here for 2 to 5 years, may be required to take a 
medical exam.
  My home State of Iowa is currently dealing with a mumps epidemic. 
Some speculate that the disease was brought over by a foreign student. 
That is the point of a medical exam. This compromise would place 
heavier burdens on our public health departments because we won't know 
what types of diseases these individuals have. They should be required 
to undergo a medical exam at their own expense. We need to require them 
upfront in order to prevent outbreaks of contagious diseases.
  The English requirement is weak. It is weaker than current 
naturalization requirements. Under current law, an immigrant has to 
demonstrate an understanding of the English language and a knowledge of 
the fundamentals of our history and government. Under this compromise, 
an alien only has to prove that they are pursuing a course of study in 
English, history, and U.S. Government. Anybody could make that claim.
  The compromise would require the Department of Homeland Security to 
do a background check on the illegal aliens in the United States. In 
fact, this compromise has placed a time limit on our Federal agents. 
They have 90 days to complete them. That is unrealistic. It is 
possible. It is a huge burden. And it is a huge expense.
  Homeland Security will surely try to hurry with these background 
checks. They will be pressured by Congress to rush them. They will 
rubberstamp applications despite possible gang participation, criminal 
activity, terrorist ties, and other violations of our laws. This is a 
national security concern.
  The compromise before us prohibits the Government from using the 
information in an application against an alien. So if an illegal alien 
writes in their application that they voted, or that they smuggled in 
drugs, or that they are related to Osama bin Laden, then our Government 
cannot use that information for critical investigations. In fact, the 
compromise would fine bureaucrats $10,000 if they use the information 
in an application for purposes other than adjudication.
  But wait--there is more. If an alien has been ordered removed, and is 
sitting in jail ready to be deported, the alien still gets the chance 
to apply for this amnesty. The thousands of illegal aliens with orders 
to leave the country can apply. Their country won't take them back, so 
our country will give them citizenship. That doesn't make sense.
  Everything that I have spoken about so far is based on the amnesty 
program for those who are currently in the United States. I would like 
to express two concerns about the future flow provisions. When we say 
future flow we mean those who aren't here but who can apply for legal 
entry through a ``temporary'' guestworker program.
  First, on day 1 of their entry into the U.S., an employer can sponsor 
the alien for a green card. If they are not sponsored within 4 years, 
then the alien can petition for him or herself. Yes, this temporary 
program for temporary workers becomes a citizenship program for anybody 
and everybody.
  Second, there is a numerical limit of 400,000. It is intellectually 
dishonest to say that this is the ceiling. The cap can be increased 
automatically without congressional approval if the limit is reached. 
It will never decrease; it can only increase.
  This compromise will have enormous economic and employment 
implications for the Nation. If we enact it, we will sell out the 
middle class in America. We would also push aside the lower, uneducated 
class of American citizens.
  Foreign workers won't have to take low-skilled jobs anymore. They 
won't be required to do the jobs that Americans supposedly won't do. 
Their spouses and children will permanently take jobs away. These 
aren't temporary workers anymore.
  What happens when this country goes into recession? Americans will be 
banging on our door, asking why we did this to them.
  We are allowing businesses to hire people at lower wages because they 
are illegal, rather than hire Americans at somewhat higher wages. Maybe 
this country needs to focus more on training and educating our own 
people, and less on how businesses can make more money by hiring 
illegals. By opening the floodgates for these kinds of low-skilled 
immigrants, we are taking away opportunities for our own.
  Businesses have no problems paying under the table or paying lower 
wages. They also don't have problems paying CEOs and executives 
astronomical salaries. There is something wrong with this equation.
  I have an amendment to create an Employer Verification System. This 
amendment, worked out between the Finance and Judiciary Committees, 
will require employers to check the eligibility of their workers.
  It will give businesses the tools they need to be compliant with the 
law. Right now, the system is voluntary, but it is time to make this 
system a staple in the workplace. We will increase worksite enforcement 
and penalties, safeguards and privacy protections.
  But this system needs to be in place if we are going to have a guest 
worker program. Employers are put on notice--we will hold them 
accountable, and we will penalize them if they violate the law.
  We are taking a huge step here in shaping the future of our country. 
What we do here with immigration will impact every aspect of our daily 
lives.
  An amnesty program for millions of people will increase the fiscal 
burden on our country. It will further strain our health care, 
education, and infrastructure systems. If these folks are not paying 
their taxes, then American citizens will have to pick up the tab. 
Americans will have to build bigger schools, and pay for the huge 
medical expenses of these people.
  So I ask my colleagues to think twice. Read the fine print. Ask 
yourself this: What about fairness? What about those who waited their 
turn in line? What about those who abide by the rules?

[[Page 5730]]

  I know many of my colleagues will support the compromise that was 
agreed to in the last day. I know they are saying to themselves: This 
is better than nothing. We had to do something. I ask my colleagues 
this: Do you think voting for this without the process of amending and 
debating is what we were elected to do? Voting for this bill because it 
is supposedly the best thing out there isn't a good enough reason.
  As a U.S. Senator, I took an oath of office to honor the 
Constitution. I bear a fundamental allegiance to uphold the rule of 
law. And that is why I cannot in good conscience support granting legal 
status to illegal immigrants who have violated our laws. Lawbreakers 
should not be rewarded. The compromise sends the wrong message to 
millions of people around the world. If you vote for this compromise, 
you obviously don't respect the rule of law.
  With a wink and a nod, Uncle Sam would turn America's historic 
welcome mat into a doormat trampled upon by millions and millions of 
illegal immigrants.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I voted in favor of cloture on the 
Hagel-Martinez compromise on the immigration bill. I did not like the 
changes that this compromise made to the Senate Judiciary Committee 
bill, and I would vastly prefer that the Senate pass the committee bill 
intact. But we lost the cloture vote on the committee bill yesterday, 
and I saw this as the only way to move forward with comprehensive 
immigration reform this year. I remain hopeful that after this coming 
recess, we will be able to come to some agreement on meaningful, 
comprehensive reform. This issue is too significant to put off--too 
important to our national security, to our economy, and most 
importantly to the millions of people whose lives will be affected. 
Like so many of my colleagues, I am willing to work on a bipartisan 
basis to address the critical problems facing our Nation with regard to 
immigration, just as the Judiciary Committee was able to do.
  I do want to lay out some of my concerns about the Hagel-Martinez 
substitute. But first, I should note that this compromise leaves intact 
most of the committee bill, including very important provisions like 
the guest worker program for foreign workers who want to enter the 
country in the future for jobs that Americans are not filling, the 
family reunification provisions, the AgJOBS title to help agricultural 
workers, and the DREAM Act to provide higher education opportunities 
for children who are long-term U.S. residents and came to this country 
illegally through no fault of their own.
  Nonetheless, the compromise makes some troubling revisions to how we 
would deal with undocumented individuals who are currently in the 
country. I appreciate that Senator Kennedy was able to secure some 
important changes to the original Hagel-Martinez proposal that help 
protect workers, such as stronger wage protections. Those were 
important concessions. But I am concerned about the core modification 
that the compromise makes to the committee bill; that is, treating 
differently those people who have been here for more than 5 years and 
those who entered the country illegally in the last 2 to 5 years. This 
approach is overly complicated and difficult to administer, and it is 
unfair to treat these two categories of people differently.
  Mr. President, we must enact realistic, comprehensive reform, and I 
will continue to work with my colleagues toward a solution. I hope that 
we can accomplish that this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the minority has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Am I correct there is now 4 minutes left on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let me say the bill that came out of the 
committee, the Kennedy-McCain bill, was substituted there over the 
Specter bill. It lurched the bill even further toward amnesty than we 
already were heading. When it came up for a vote yesterday, it needed 
60 votes to proceed. It got 60 votes against it--only 39 to proceed. It 
was defeated overwhelmingly.
  Then they hatched a compromise among Members who already supported 
the Kennedy bill and they claimed they were producing a compromise that 
could be supported. But people who should have been involved in that 
compromise, who worked so hard on this, such as Senator Kyl, Senator 
Cornyn, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dorgan, Senator Nelson, and Senator 
Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is here--I am not aware they were involved in 
it. So they bring that up now and expect us to support it.
  Ninety-five percent of what was in the bill rejected yesterday is in 
this one and there is no substantial change in matters of amnesty. In 
fact, with regard to green cards, it increases significantly the number 
that would be granted over the bill we rejected yesterday. It is an 
unprincipled approach, in my view, and not a well thought out plan.
  With regard to this question, who will say on the floor of this 
Senate that the enforcement provisions will be carried out and we will 
actually have enforcement on the border? That is why the Presiding 
Officer, Senator Isakson, had a perfectly important amendment. That was 
not allowed to be voted on. It would at least have taken a strong step 
toward ensuring that whatever we passed becomes law.
  Finally, when asked what the cost was, nobody knew until last night 
and we find that the cost of this bill is $29 billion over 5 years. 
Nobody had even thought about it. That clearly is a budget-busting 
matter.
  This bill is a dead horse, in my view. It should be rejected because 
amendments have not been allowed, and it should be rejected most 
importantly because it does not do what it purports to do.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, no one has been the beneficiary of 
legal immigration more than this Senator. My wife, who has the 
privilege of serving in the President's Cabinet, came to this country 
at age 8 not speaking a word of English and has realized the American 
dream and been an important part of my life, obviously, as my partner 
for a number of years. So I am one Senator who wishes to see a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill pass.
  But the Hagel-Martinez bill is a lengthy, complicated measure, and it 
was suggested last night by my good friend, the Democratic leader, that 
somehow it is extraordinary to request 20 amendments on a bill of this 
magnitude and complexity.
  Routinely on bills of this size we have at least this many 
amendments. In this Congress alone, for example, we had 21 votes on the 
Energy bill, 37 votes on the budget resolution, and 31 votes on the 
bankruptcy bill, including a couple of nongermane amendments on minimum 
wage. All of those bills, of course, were arguably complex, but 
certainly this one is as well.
  We have been allowed to have only three votes on amendments to this 
bill, and we have been on this bill well in excess of a week. So what 
Republicans are arguing for today is fairness in the process, the 
routine, normal way with which we deal with complex legislation here on 
the floor of the Senate, after which we will produce, hopefully, a 
comprehensive bill that will be passed on a bipartisan basis. In the 
meantime, it is my hope and expectation that all Republican Senators 
will oppose cloture until we are allowed to offer this rather 
reasonable and modest number of amendments--about 20.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. If the majority agrees here, I will make a brief statement 
and use my leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the American 
people's need for a win on immigration--not the Republicans, not the 
Democrats. Today we have another chance to give them that win if we 
vote for cloture and move forward on legislation that will

[[Page 5731]]

protect our borders and fix our badly broken immigration system. All of 
us, Democrats and Republicans--we all need the courage to do what is 
required of us now. It is time to move forward on tough and smart 
immigration reform.
  The amendment before us does what we need of an immigration bill. An 
immigration bill will secure our borders, crack down on employers who 
break the law, and allow us to find who is living here by giving 12 
million undocumented workers a reason to come out of the darkness, out 
of the shadows, pay a fine, undergo a background check, stay out of 
trouble, have a job, pay the penalties, and become legal when their 
number is called, even though it is many years from now.
  Americans have demonstrated literally in the streets for a bill like 
this. They have spoken. It is up to the majority to answer their call. 
If tough, comprehensive immigration reform fails to move forward, it 
will be the Republicans' burden to bear. Virtually all Democrats 
supported the Specter bill that came before the Senate. Virtually all 
Democrats support the Martinez substitute. So the majority must explain 
to the American people why they are permitting a filibuster of 
immigration legislation, a filibuster by amendment.
  On such an important national security issue, this is no place for 
stonewalling and obstruction. Yet that is where we are. We are ready 
today to fix our broken immigration system and give Americans the real 
security they deserve. They are looking for a win. They deserve a win. 
We can do it with a vote to invoke cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, a lot of people are asking what happened 
between the optimism of yesterday morning that centered on real 
progress, as people did come around working together, both sides of the 
aisle, on a Hagel-Martinez amendment, and this morning where it looks 
as if everything has been obstructed, stopped, stonewalled. There are 
talks of obstruction from the other side of the aisle. What has 
happened is no amendments have been allowed by the other side of the 
aisle to come to the floor to be debated, to be discussed, to be voted 
upon. Rollcall votes or voice votes--zero over the last 24 hours, where 
the clear understanding yesterday morning was that we would have an 
opportunity to allow Senators to express themselves on votes.
  The Democratic leadership has effectively stopped, put a halt to that 
great progress that was being made yesterday morning, by not allowing 
amendments. Yes, they put a stranglehold on the right of every Senator 
to offer amendments and to have his or her views expressed and acted 
upon. The facts tell the story. Over the last 9 days, on complex issues 
based on a very good, solid product generated by the Judiciary 
Committee, about 400 amendments have been filed and only 3 of 400 have 
been allowed by the other side of the aisle to come to the floor to be 
voted upon. Only 3 out of 400. That tells the whole story. In the 
process on a bill that is a challenging bill, a large bill, a bill that 
will affect almost 300 million Americans now and many more in the 
future, we have only been allowed to have three votes over the last 9 
days.
  Viewers, I know, ask, people at home ask all the time: How can that 
possibly be, if you have good support and people look as though they 
are working together and all? And the answer is if anything takes 
unanimous consent around here, anything does, the Democratic leadership 
can effectively stop, put a halt to that debate and amendment process. 
Of 400 amendments, 3 have been considered over the last 9 days. It is a 
process that has been broken. It is a process we have to fix if we are 
going to be able to address the issues before us, whether it is 
immigration or other important bills.
  It has been interesting, listening to some of the comments this 
morning and last night, and as has been reflected in both the 
Democratic leader's statements and in mine and others, it is true the 
Democratic leader--to me this is almost laughable--has said we are 
going to dictate who is on the conference committee, the minority 
leader, the Democratic leader, saying we are going to dictate who is on 
the conference committee. It is absurd. It is laughable. It has never 
been done. But it is proposed as if that is even a reasonable proposal 
before allowing us to take up amendments and debate them and have them 
voted upon.
  I asked unanimous consent last night--because it is frustrating 
having 400 amendments over there and in 9 days only being allowed 3 
votes--let's take up one of those amendments. That was refused. Let's 
take up another one. That was refused, my unanimous consent request, 
and a third was refused just to demonstrate--yes, it is frustration, 
and it is the right of the minority to obstruct, but that explains the 
difference between the optimism moving forward for a solution before we 
began the recess and now what is obviously going to occur; that is, we 
are going to have to postpone and delay full consideration of this 
bill.
  The Democratic leader earlier this morning asked: Why aren't we 
allowing these amendments to come forth from the other side? Indeed, 
out of 400, I said: Can't we consider 20 of them at some point in the 
future? The answer was no. Why don't we consider amendments? Why are we 
shutting down the amendment process because some Members might not 
agree with everything in that 425-page bill?
  There are going to be things in there that need to be fixed, 
modified. There may be some dangerous things in there in many people's 
minds. And to not even allow them to bring them to the floor to debate 
them is just flat out wrong.
  I can understand the other side trying to advantage themselves in the 
outcome in their favor, but to shut out all amendments, to say that 
only 3 of 400 amendments are to be considered is simply wrong. It 
really does come down to a matter of fairness.
  I began this debate a week and a half ago saying: Let's have a civil 
process, a dignified process. It is an important issue with many 
millions of people coming across our borders. We need to secure our 
borders. We need to have worksite enforcement and interior enforcement. 
We need to have a temporary worker program. There are 12 million people 
in the shadows. We need to bring them out.
  It has effectively been brought to a halt by the other side. It is 
unfair to deny Members on both sides of the aisle the right to express 
their voice and have their amendments considered. It is unfair to the 
authors of the bill and the Judiciary Committee that generated this 
bill. It is unfair to this body, and I believe to the institution as a 
whole and to the American people.
  Although I am strongly supportive of a border security bill--tighten 
those borders--a bill that addresses worksite enforcement, a temporary 
worker plan, and one that brings people out of the shadows, I feel it 
is important that we oppose bringing debate on the Hagel-Martinez 
amendment to a close in order to protect the rights of Members to offer 
amendments and to have them debated and voted on.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded, under the 
previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate 
the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The 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 pending 
     motion to commit S. 2454, the Securing America's Borders Act.
         Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Michael B. Enzi, Lindsey 
           Graham, Trent Lott, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Mitch 
           McConnell, George V. Voinovich, Mel Martinez, Lamar 
           Alexander, Norm Coleman, Pete Domenici, Orrin Hatch, 
           David Vitter, Johnny Isakson, Jim DeMint.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
pending motion to commit S. 2454, the Securing

[[Page 5732]]

America's Borders Act, to the Committee on the Judiciary with 
instructions to report back forthwith shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
  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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--60

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Rockefeller
     Stevens
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 38, the nays are 
60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next vote 
be a 10-minute rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, the 
next vote will be a 10-minute rollcall vote. If cloture is not invoked, 
we are working on an agreement that will have about 55 minutes--
hopefully less--before we will have another rollcall vote. That will be 
immediately followed by another rollcall vote, and then, depending on 
the outcome of that vote, that would either be the last vote or we 
might have one more vote. So a 10-minute vote, about 55 minutes, two 
rollcall votes, and then we will have more to say.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The 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 Calendar No. 
     376, S. 2454, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act to provide for comprehensive reform, and for other 
     purposes.
         Bill Frist, George Allen, Mitch McConnell, Pete Domenici, 
           R.F. Bennett, Jim Talent, Craig Thomas, Elizabeth Dole, 
           Conrad Burns, Jim DeMint, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny 
           Isakson, Ted Stevens, Wayne Allard, Norm Coleman, Trent 
           Lott, John Thune.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2454, the Securing America's Borders Act, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
  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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36 nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Rockefeller
     Stevens
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 36, the nays are 
62. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to express my dismay regarding 
the collapse of the Senate's work on border security legislation.
  As a border State Senator, I know first-hand the need to secure our 
international borders because every day I hear from constituents who 
must deal with illegal entries into our country. We have a crisis on 
our borders and the status quo is not acceptable. We need to address 
this situation but are not being allowed to because of Democrats' 
refusal to allow votes on amendments to border security legislation on 
the Senate floor.
  Their refusal to allow votes means that my amendments, which are very 
important to New Mexico, the southwest border, and the Nation, cannot 
be considered. Those amendments would have provided for two more 
Federal judges in New Mexico to deal with immigration cases, provided 
250 new deputy U.S. Marshals to transport and guard criminal illegal 
aliens, authorized $585 million for land port of entry infrastructure 
and technology, and called for Mexico's cooperation on border security.
  My amendments are based on needs that are imperative to border 
security. I have been told of the need for new Federal district judges 
in New Mexico by the Chief Judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, the Chief Judge of the New Mexico District, and several other 
Federal district judges in my home State. In fiscal year 2005, more 
than 1800 immigration cases were filed in the District of New Mexico. 
We must have more Federal judges to handle this caseload that the 
Judicial Conference has referred to this situation as a ``crisis.'' I 
have been told of the need for new deputy U.S. Marshals by the U.S. 
Marshal for New Mexico. His deputies are responsible for transporting 
illegal aliens to court and guarding them when they appear in Federal 
district court. I have seen firsthand the need for port of entry 
improvements in New Mexico, and since I worked with Senator DeConcini 
on the last major land port of entry overhaul in 1986, I know that the 
time has come to again address our land port needs. Lastly, I am

[[Page 5733]]

convinced that we must have Mexico's cooperation to secure our porous 
southwest border, and my amendment would have provided a path to secure 
that cooperation.
  The refusal of Democrats to allow consideration of these amendments 
is nothing short of irresponsible behavior towards the security of 
America.
  The Democrats' refusal to limit debate on the majority leader's 
border security bill today confirms their lack of understanding 
regarding the need for border security. Senator Frist's Securing 
America's Borders Act includes 1,250 new customs and border protection 
officers, 1,000 new DHS investigative personnel, 1,250 new DHS port of 
entry inspectors, 1,000 new Immigration and customs enforcement 
inspectors, and 2,400 new border patrol agents. The bill authorizes 
funding for new border security technologies and assets, including new 
unmanned aerial vehicles, vehicle barriers, cameras, sensors, and all-
weather roads. This bill would have addressed many of our border 
security needs, and I am frustrated that we were not allowed to vote on 
this bill.
  As it stands now, we will not see any of the comprehensive border 
security improvements that New Mexico and other States desperately 
need. I could not be more disappointed.
  On February 10, 2005, I introduced legislation to create additional 
Federal district judgeships in the State of New Mexico.
  On November 17, 2005, I introduced the Border Security and 
Modernization Act of 2005, S. 2049, with bipartisan support. That bill 
calls for improvements to our port of entry infrastructure, increased 
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and Department of Justice 
personnel, new technologies and assets for border security, increased 
detention capacity, and additional Federal assistance for States.
  On February 17, 2006, I introduced the Welcoming Immigrants to a 
Secure Homeland Act. That bill calls for an increase in the number of 
DHS personnel who investigate human smuggling laws, employment of 
immigrants, and immigration fraud and increased penalties for 
violations of immigration laws. It also creates a new guest worker visa 
that lets individuals who want to, come to the United States to work. 
Lastly, it creates a way to account for the millions of undocumented 
aliens residing in the United States without creating an automatic path 
to citizenship.
  I supported the efforts to jointly address border security and 
immigration reform legislation, but I am convinced that if we cannot 
agree regarding immigration reform, we must still secure our borders. 
The President must budget for our border needs, and Congress must 
appropriate for those needs.

                          ____________________