[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8146-8165]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of S. 2611, which the clerk 
will report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2611) to provide for comprehensive immigration 
     reform and for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is summertime. It is the time that we 
see the rolling out of American blockbuster movies. They also try to 
save their best for the summer. This summer's blockbuster is ``The Da 
Vinci Code,'' starring Tom Hanks. It starts this Friday all across 
America. But the third week in May on the Senate floor we have our own 
Senate blockbuster. It is the sequel though, not the original, part 2 
of immigration. The first installment didn't go well for a number of 
reasons. One of the reasons I felt it didn't go well was the fact that 
the President wasn't involved personally in it. He wasn't involved in 
the debate.
  For the first installment, I think the Judiciary Committee did very 
well. They were working on a very tight timeframe. There probably 
should have been more hearings. That is one reason there were probably 
more amendments than we would normally have on a bill. But I think 
Senators Leahy and Specter did an outstanding job to work out the 
bipartisan compromise--what we call the McCain-Kennedy legislation. It 
is a bill we tried to deal with on the floor. It didn't move forward 
for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact we couldn't work out 
a procedural mechanism to go forward. We tried. We had two cloture 
votes. All the Democrats voted to go forward with this; all the 
Republicans voted not to go forward with the legislation.
  What did that legislation have in it? Both the McCain-Kennedy and the 
so-called Hagel-Martinez substitute. They have in them provisions that 
I think are so important to this country.
  First, our border security.
  I was in the Congress 20 years ago and served in the House of 
Representatives when we passed an immigration bill. Obviously, we 
didn't do a very good job. Twenty years later, we have at least 12 
million people who are here that are undocumented.
  With this legislation, which is so important, we do good, sound, 
long-term border security.
  We also have to have a temporary worker program. There could be a 
number of amendments offered on this legislation. But we have to have a 
temporary worker program. I have said on a number of occasions that Las 
Vegas is a perfect example of why we need a temporary worker program. 
In the next 4 or 5 years, they will have 50,000 new hotel rooms. 
Management and the union say they cannot find the workers to man those 
hotels. So we need a temporary guest worker program.
  I have mentioned we have 12 million people who are now living in the 
shadows. We have to have a way of bringing them out of the shadows. The 
McCain-Kennedy legislation sets the framework for doing that. How? By 
putting them on path of legalization--a path that would require their 
having jobs, paying taxes, staying out of trouble, no crimes, learning 
English, paying some penalty. Then they move to the back of the line. 
It will take a long time for them to get to the front of the line, but 
at least they can come out of the shadows and not be worried about 
being picked up for a violation of some kind, with their American 
husbands and wives and their children. We need to do that.
  Finally, we have to have in a good immigration bill something to make 
meaningful employer sanctions. That is why I support the legislation 
now before the Senate.
  Of course, I am going to vote for some amendments. I think some 
improvements can be made.
  We are now on the sequel of what took place before the Easter 
vacation. Yes, the sequel.
  I hope the President will take a leading role in this sequel, a role 
on this rerun. But his role is up to him. It is up to him. His role 
starts tonight in a speech that he is going to give to the Nation. We 
have had preliminary statements as to what this speech is going to be. 
We understand that one of the things he is going to talk about is 
bringing out the National Guard.
  I believe in strong border security. If there is a way we can work 
out the National Guard situation, fine. I am willing to go along with 
that. But my colleague, Senator Hagel, has said he believes that the 
National Guard is stretched too thin. My colleague, Senator Biden, said 
the same thing. He said it both yesterday and on Sunday

[[Page 8147]]

talk shows. Some National Guardsmen have had four tours of duty in 
Iraq.
  I hope we can come up with something that is meaningful.
  Governor Napolitano and Governor Richardson of Arizona and New Mexico 
have stated on a number of occasions over the last many months they 
believe the National Guard should be called out. The problem is they 
need some way of financing this. This is a Federal obligation. The 
States shouldn't have to bear it.
  I hope the President will address that.
  The President must be specific. We must have permanent solutions--not 
stopgap measures for our border security.
  The President's role in this sequel, ``Immigration No. 2,'' is up to 
him. I would be the first to give him a leading role. We need him. We 
didn't have him involved in the first immigration debate. He came in 
and started saying things after the votes had already taken place.
  I hope the President is willing to stand up and be counted on this 
issue.
  I have some questions for the President. The first question is very 
basic. We need to know what kind of immigration reform he supports.
  Does he believe, as his Republicans in the House do, that we should 
build a 700-mile fence on our border? He must take a stand in that 
regard.
  Does he believe, as his Republican colleagues in the House do, that 
we should make all undocumented immigrants felons?
  Does the President believe, as his Republicans in the House believe, 
that we should make all those who feed, clothe, and otherwise assist 
undocumented immigrants felons--also, people such as priests, 
ministers, missionaries, social workers, and welfare personnel?
  He must speak out on these very unfavorable provisions in the House 
bill.
  Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to spend some time in my office 
with Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal Mahony, two wonderful, caring, 
spiritual men.
  Under the House legislation, Cardinal Mahony would be a felon.
  Here is what Cardinal Mahony said about the bill:

       The whole concept of punishing people who serve immigrants 
     is un-American. If you take this to its logical, ludicrous 
     extreme, every single person who comes up to receive Holy 
     Communion, you have to ask them to show papers. It becomes 
     absurd and the church is not about to get into that. The 
     church is here to serve people. We're not about to become 
     immigration agents. It just throws more gasoline on the 
     discussion and inflames people.

  I believe the Senate will move forward with good, strong immigration 
reform. But I also believe our work could be hijacked by House 
Republicans who want to turn immigrants into felons.
  I have fought to prevent this from happening by guaranteeing fair 
representation in the conference committee. The President can do even 
more tonight.
  Chairman Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary 
Committee, the man who among others pushed this felony provision, 
stated publicly that the measure was included at the ``administration's 
request.'' If that is the case, President Bush needs to tell Chairman 
Sensenbrenner to remove the provision and that it is dead.
  The President needs to make it clear once and for all that he will 
only support immigration reform that is tough and smart. He must 
publicly denounce the House bill.
  The second question for President Bush concerns security. It is fine 
to hear him say that he wants to send the National Guard, but what else 
will he do to address 4\1/2\ years of neglect?
  We all remember. We were celebrating the fact that one of the first 
things he did after becoming President was going to Mexico and saying 
he was going to work out the immigration problems with President Fox. 
It hasn't worked. This issue has been ignored for 5\1/2\ years.
  Tonight, it is not enough for the President to tell us he wants to 
increase security at our borders. After all, I repeat, he has had 5\1/
2\ years to do this. If he wants to be credible on border security, he 
must acknowledge the mistakes in the past and commit to fixing them.
  The lack of security at our borders is frightening. Apprehensions of 
undocumented immigrants have dropped under President Bush by 30 
percent. We have gone from apprehending 1.7 million individuals 
illegally crossing between 1996 and 2000 to just over 1 million now.
  It is not that less people are coming. It is that we don't have the 
resources we need to catch them.
  A month ago, I was on the border. I saw some of the problems which 
the overworked Border Patrol agents face. At San Ysidro, it is hard to 
comprehend, but there are 24 lanes of traffic coming into the United 
States 24 hours a day, 7 days a week--24 lanes of traffic one way.
  They are understaffed and under-
resourced. They simply can't handle it. It can be handled, but they 
need the resources to do it.
  But it is more than people whom we can't catch coming across our 
borders. We can't forget that a few weeks ago the Government 
Accountability Office reported that in March they detailed how two 
Federal investigators were able to smuggle into our country nuclear 
material. This shocking report is an indictment of what has happened on 
our borders. For too long this administration has neglected its 
responsibility for protecting our homeland, including our border.
  The 9/11 Commission told the President that he should work with other 
countries to develop a terrorist watch list which Border Patrol agents 
could use to check people crossing the border. Did he do it? No.
  The 9/11 Commission gave him a failing grade when they issued their 
report card last year--a ``D.''
  In the 9/11 legislation which we passed to help secure our country, 
Congress authorized 2,000 new Border Parol agents.
  What did the President of the United States do to put these 2,000 
agents in place? Well, he did 75 percent of it. We are still 500 agents 
short. The President watched as the Republicans in Congress have 
refused to fund these positions even though we have tried.
  The same legislation, the September 11 act, authorized facilities to 
hold up to 8,000 individuals detained while illegally crossing our 
border. Currently, we do not have the capacity to hold all those we 
detain, so they are most often released with a court date. They then 
disappear into our country. Over the weekend, there were news stories 
about tens of thousands coming into our country illegally. They are 
detained. Then we say: See you later, check in for court. Of course, 
they never come to court. Rarely do they come to court. Why do the 
authorities let them go? They have no place to put them. Did the 
President make sure the new 8,000 detention bed facilities became a 
reality? No. He has allowed the Congress to fund only 1,800 of these 
new detention beds. No wonder the border agents have no alternative but 
to let them go.
  All this adds up to a credibility gap. It is no wonder the President 
got a failing grade, a D. He is coming late to this sequel. He did not 
appear at all in immigration I. Let's hope he appears in immigration II 
and answers some of these questions.
  It is not enough for him to unveil a proposal to use our National 
Guard. We need more. He must commit to fixing the problems that have 
been neglected and tell us when he will add additional agents. Congress 
calls for 2,000 agents; we are 500 short. It is not right that Congress 
passes laws saying we need 8,000 additional beds for the people coming 
to our country illegally and we get 1,800. He must commit to fixing the 
problem. These problems have been neglected. He needs to tell us when 
we will be getting the necessary authorized agents.
  The States have had to bear the expense of holding these people. That 
should be defrayed by the Federal Government. This is not the State's 
border, it is the U.S. border. We must implement the recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission.
  Question No. 3: If President Bush is going to get tough on border 
security, will he finally get tough on border sanctions as well?
  This is a question of credibility. For years, this administration has 
been

[[Page 8148]]

willing to look the other way as immigration laws have gone unenforced. 
In 2004, the Government issued just three notices of intent to fine 
employers. There are tens of thousands of employers, and most of us 
believe that lots of them have violated the law with improper papers. 
There were just three notices of intent in 2004. No one was fined. In 
2005, the administration targeted only one employer for an enforcement 
action. That was Wal-Mart. Overall audits of employers suspected of 
using illegal immigrants have dropped from 8,000 under President 
Clinton to less than 2,000 in 2003. President Bush must account for 
this record. He must do it in tonight's speech.
  Question No. 4: If, as rumored, the President will announce he is 
going to send the National Guard to our border, will he tell the 
American people how this proposal will work without jeopardizing the 
critical role the National Guard plays in keeping our communities and 
Nation safe?
  Our National Guard is a vital force on which all of us--Presidents, 
Governors, mayors, and Members of Congress--depend. Unfortunately, 
President Bush has overtaxed, overused, and underfunded this critical 
national security resource. The men and women of our Guard have given 
us their best in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. They have 
given their best on the gulf coast. They have given their best in 
Nevada and other States across America, whether it is fires, floods, 
hurricanes, or civil unrest.
  Now, if it is true that the President is going to order them on 
another mission, he must tell us how he will help them succeed and 
ensure they are ready and prepared should they be called to another 
mission--our border.
  It is remarkable that in January, this White House submitted a budget 
to Congress calling to cut 17,000 guardsmen. Yet now he is asking them 
to do more with less. Tonight, in clear and consistent terms, we need 
to hear how they will be used, how they will be supported, how they 
will prepare and be ready for the unexpected missions.
  Remember, all the preliminaries coming out from the White House say 
that it is going to be a temporary fix. I am for doing anything we can 
to protect our borders, within reason, but we must do it on a permanent 
basis, not a temporary basis. We have been told this Guard thing is a 
stop-gap measure.
  These are just four questions. There are a lot of other questions we 
could ask, but these are questions on which I will judge the President 
tonight, as I believe the American people will. His answers will tell 
if he is committed to comprehensive reform and if he is finally serious 
about securing our borders. As I said, today marks the beginning of 
immigration part II. Scene I closes tonight with the President's 
speech, leaving many more scenes to play in the Senate, but the 
President must be a player, an actor, not a spectator, in all the 
processes of this debate, not just the first act.
  The bill before the Senate is not perfect. I like McCain-Kennedy 
better than I like the substitute, the Hagel-Martinez bill. There will 
be amendments to consider and to work their way through the Senate.
  For example, it is important we pass a bill and go on record 
supporting the concept of immigration reform, our enforcement-plus-
reform approach, and opposing the House punitive enforcement-only bill. 
I have made it clear that I will support the Hagel-Martinez compromise 
but with some amendments. We will be well advised to take a look at 
some of the provisions in that bill to see if they should be amended. 
There are Members from both sides with good intentions who want to 
offer amendments, and they should do that. I voted to move forward on 
Hagel-Martinez before the Easter recess, with germane amendments being 
available postcloture. That did not work.
  However, we are here now. The compromise we have is not perfect. 
Among other problems with the bill, I particularly wish to highlight my 
concern with the division of the population of 11 to 12 million 
undocumented immigrants that is in this legislation.
  Under the Hagel-Martinez bill, we have three groups. The middle group 
of immigrants who have been here between 2 and 5 years will be required 
to do what I have heard some refer to as the ``touch back'' or ``touch 
base'' return. They have to cross the border at a port of entry then 
they can come right back. I personally think that is a big waste of 
time, effort, and energy, but that is what is in that legislation. 
There will be amendments offered on that, and unless there is something 
I don't understand, I would support the amendment to change that 
provision. It does not make sense to me. I fear that it may deter 
participation in the program because some immigrants fear they will not 
be allowed to return or will be fined, or it is too much of a hardship 
with regard to their financial or childcare responsibilities to be able 
to make that trip. There is a waiver in it, but it is very difficult to 
obtain.
  I repeat, this provision is a waste of time, energy, and effort. I 
know there will be an amendment offered to take that out.
  More importantly, this bill includes some mean-spirited provisions 
for this group that strike me as unwise as a matter of public policy. 
They have to waive their right to administrative or judicial review, 
which means they have no right to contest the decision of some 
bureaucrat who for whatever reason decides they do not meet the 
requirement to participate in this legalization program. This sounds 
like a big problem to me.
  In addition, many tens of thousands of people in this group will be 
ineligible for the program because they had a prior deportation order 
and failed to leave the country under a voluntary departure agreement 
or--this is particularly disturbing--they failed to comply with any 
request for information by the Department of Homeland Security.
  The whole point of what we are doing is to deal with this population 
which is here under the table, for lack of a better description. They 
are here. They came here illegally, and there has been a decision 
made--and some people disagree with this, but we cannot simply deport 
all of these people. So we want to put them on a path to legalization. 
I repeat, jobs, taxes, no crimes, learn English, pay penalties. Most 
people believe that is the right thing to do. And in the future, have a 
better hold on our border and make sure we do not have problems in the 
future. This is what we need to do.
  I don't see why we should make a distinction between those who have 
been unlucky enough to get caught and put through deportation 
proceedings and those who have not.
  As far as those who have been here less than 2 years, we have to draw 
a cutoff line somewhere, but I am concerned, as the bill stands, this 
will simply lead to a situation where a couple million people will not 
leave the country and will simply remain here undocumented. That is 
unfortunate. I hope we can make improvements in the bill to address 
this group of people as well.
  We have so much to do. I hope we can make some fixes to these 
sections so we can get as many people as possible out of the shadows, 
registered with the Government, paying taxes, learning English, staying 
out of trouble, and complying with the law generally.
  I look forward to this bipartisan debate. I hope it is that. There 
are strong feelings, but this is when the Senate is at its best. This 
is a debate which needs to take place. People have the ability to offer 
their amendments, debate those amendments, and move this legislation 
along. Democrats and Republicans are working together to construct 
legislation to protect our borders. It is so important we do this. I 
look forward to this debate. As I have indicated, we can do this. We 
must have this bipartisan measure move forward. The American people 
recognize the importance of it. It is important for our country.
  In the Senate now, we have the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee. He and I have not always agreed on matters. More 
often we have agreed than disagreed, but I want the record spread with 
my view on the remarkably good job under a very difficult situation 
that this experienced legislator has done during his tenure as

[[Page 8149]]

chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We have been able to work our way 
through the most difficult issues.
  I don't serve on the Judiciary Committee. Never have. I did in the 
State legislature. All difficult measures that are around come through 
the Judiciary Committee. They are funneled through the Judiciary 
Committee. That is the way it was in the State legislature, and we find 
the same here. Contentious issues find their way into the Judiciary 
Committee. Senator Specter has done a tremendously good job.
  As I indicated in my opening remarks, what he and Senator Leahy were 
able to do to get this bill to this point was a miracle. It was nothing 
short of a miracle to get the bill out of the committee in the first 
place and then to get it in the Senate. I hope, in the not-too-distant 
future, we can all look back and say this is one of the times the 
Senate has shown what the Senate is known for, and that is working its 
way through very difficult issues and having debates the country will 
long remember.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his 
comments, and I thank him for his statements today suggesting a 
bipartisan approach to this very important piece of legislation.
  The leader of the Democrats is accurate when he has characterized the 
work which Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the full committee, and 
I have done on this bill. It has been 16 months of cooperation on some 
of the tough issues, including moving ahead with bankruptcy reform, 
class action reform. Through very strenuous efforts, we were able to 
steer this Senate away from a confrontation and a filibuster in the so-
called constitutional option. We moved through the confirmation of two 
Supreme Court Justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, which 
could have been very problematic.
  We were able to work through the PATRIOT Act. We were able to work 
through the asbestos reform bill where there are still issues of 
controversy that I hope we will be able to address in the not too 
distant future. And then, as the distinguished leader of the Democrats 
commented, moving this immigration bill out of committee was a very 
strenuous effort on the final Monday, with a marathon session.
  Now the bill is back in the Senate, and with the spirit of 
cooperation which the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, and 
the distinguished minority leader, Senator Reid, have articulated, we 
are in a position to go forward. But we have a great deal of hard work 
to do.
  As manager of the bill, along with Senator Leahy, it appears we will 
have some 30 amendments. That is a lot of amendments but a manageable 
number if we address them with time limits so the arguments can be made 
on both sides and we can proceed to votes.
  There will be other business which will have to be considered at the 
same time this bill is on the floor. We have pending the nomination of 
Brett M. Kavanaugh for the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit. The prospects are there will be debate and an up-or-
down vote, and that will have to be worked into our schedule.
  The nomination of General Hayden is pending for Director of CIA. What 
the timetable will be there remains to be seen. But that is an 
important position, and it may be that action will be possible on that 
nomination up or down before we adjourn for the Memorial Day recess.
  But the core work which we have to do will be the amendments on this 
immigration bill. I have discussed the timing of votes with the 
majority leader, who is prepared to back the managers of this bill on 
time limits on the votes. We have a 15-minute time limit on votes and a 
5-minute grace period. It is our expectation we will be enforcing those 
limits rigorously. When we have stacked votes, as is our custom, we 
have 10-minute votes and 5-minute extensions. We will be enforcing 
those limits rigorously.
  There have been some occasions when the votes have languished for 
very protracted periods of time. In the past, when we have rigorously 
enforced the time limits, it is something which I think meets with 
virtually unanimous approval among the Members. Even those who 
occasionally miss a vote appreciate the fact that they do not have to 
wait for 10, 15, or even more minutes after the vote is supposed to 
have ended until the next vote starts and the next debate starts. So 
everyone should be on notice that we intend to proceed in that manner.
  We return to the debate on the immigration bill, after a period where 
we could not come to terms on the structuring of debate before the last 
recess. But now we are in a position to go forward.
  This bill is an outgrowth of the core provisions of the McCain-
Kennedy legislation, then reported out by the Judiciary Committee with 
substantial modifications, putting the so-called 11 million 
undocumented immigrants at the end of the line, making provisions for 
border enforcement, making provisions for employer enforcement, and 
making provisions for judicial reform.
  Then we have had additional modifications made by the amendments 
offered by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez, so that we now have an 
amalgam of legislation, trying to work through the ideas of many 
Senators on very hotly contested items, and items which are very 
emotional.
  There have been questions raised about what will happen beyond a 
Senate-passed bill, which will be a comprehensive bill, which will 
include a guest worker provision, which has been advocated by President 
Bush, also advocated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
Dennis Hastert.
  With that guest worker provision, and with other provisions, the 
Senate bill will be significantly different from the House bill.
  We have worked cooperatively with Chairman Sensenbrenner in the past 
on complex legislation. With the good faith which I know will be 
present by both bodies, I believe we can craft, under our bicameral 
system, a legislative package in conference which will be acceptable to 
both the House and the Senate.
  There have been those who have said they will reject any major 
changes in the Senate bill. I believe the core provisions in the Senate 
bill--finding an answer to the 11 million undocumented immigrants, an 
answer to their status, is indispensable on immigration reform.
  We cannot create a fugitive class in America. We do need immigrants, 
guest workers to handle very important jobs in our economy. I believe 
within a broad ambit we can reach agreement with the House of 
Representatives.
  We are looking at this large group of undocumented immigrants, 
estimated by the Pew Hispanic Center to be between 11 and 12 million 
individuals. We know these undocumented immigrants constitute almost 5 
percent of our labor workforce. We know, according to the Center for 
American Progress, the total cost to, so-called, round up every illegal 
immigrant within the United States would be $200 billion to $230 
billion over 5 years, without the capacity to house people once they 
are arrested and under very difficult circumstances.
  The legislation we are considering today is not amnesty. That is a 
pejorative term, really a smear term used to denigrate the efforts at 
comprehensive immigration reform. This is not amnesty because amnesty 
means a pardon of those who have broken the law. That is not the case 
here. These undocumented immigrants will have to pay a fine. They will 
have to undergo a rigorous criminal background investigation to be sure 
we do not have a criminal element subject to staying in the United 
States and being on the citizenship track. They will have to learn 
English so they can integrate into our society. They will have to have 
a job for 6 years. They will then be at the end of the line.
  When the comments are made about enforcing our borders, the first 
amendment which will be offered by the proponents of the bill will be a 
border security certification, which provides that:

[[Page 8150]]


  The Secretary may not implement any program authorized by this Act or 
by any amendments made under this Act which grants legal status to any 
individual or adjusts the current status of any individual who enters 
or entered the United States in violation of Federal law unless the 
Secretary has submitted a written certification to the President and 
Congress that the border security measures authorized under title I and 
the increases in Federal detention space authorized under section 233 
have been fully completed and are operational.
  Now, this certification really is directed to those who have said we 
ought to have border security in place and employment sanctions in 
place before we consider what we do with the 11 million undocumented 
aliens, immigrants, or what we do on a guest worker program. Well, that 
is the cart-before-the-horse argument. This border security 
certification puts the horse in place before we move ahead to the cart 
and I think, when implemented, as implemented, will answer that point.
  This bill, which we are laying down today, provides very material 
items on border enforcement. For example, it increases Border Patrol by 
400 per year for 5 years; authorizes technologies to create a so-called 
virtual fence along the southern border; authorizes physical barriers 
for highly trafficked parts of Arizona's border and California's 
border, and highly trafficked parts on other borders; provides for a 
study of a possible new fence along the southern border; and creates 
crimes for eluding immigration inspectors; and it ends the catch-and-
release practice for other-than Mexicans.
  We also have very substantial provisions on interior enforcement. It 
eliminates gang members from admissibility for citizenship and deports 
those gang members. It clarifies and strengthens alien smuggling laws 
with increased penalties. It provides criminal penalties for various 
immigration-related document fraud. It provides for 20 more alien 
detention facilities, with the capacity for 10,000.
  In title III we have employment enforcement. One of the major 
failings of the 1986 legislation was the failure to have employment 
enforcement.
  We have provisions for a guest worker program. We have provisions for 
family-based and employment-based green cards.
  We have title VI: work authorization and legalization of undocumented 
individuals.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of my 
oral remarks, the full outline of S. 2611 be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. We have created, under the work authorization and 
legalization of undocumented individuals, three separate categories: a 
category for those who have been in the United States for more than 5 
years before April 5, 2006; a second category, category 2, for those 
who have been in the United States for less than 5 years before January 
7, 2004, which does have a ``leave country and touch base'' 
requirement.
  The Senator from Nevada, the leader of the Democrats, raised his 
concerns about this provision as to whether it ought to stay in the 
bill and said there will be amendments to remove it. It is a 
controversial provision. There is a real issue as to whether it 
accomplishes something which is worthwhile. But in cobbling together 
and crafting a bill, it has been necessary to put in provisions which 
are not universally accepted. And that is the nature of legislation, 
that there are accommodations, and everyone does not get everything 
they like. But we will subject this particular provision to very 
careful analysis and debate, and the will of the Senate will be worked 
on it.
  There is a third category of those who entered the United States 
after January 7 of the year 2004.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my 
statement be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Immigration Floor Statement

       Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today the Senate resumes the 
     debate on immigration reform with S. 2611, featuring the 
     compromise that was crafted by a group of Senators shortly 
     before our last recess. This legislation will affect millions 
     of individuals and will alter America's social and economic 
     landscape. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, between 11 
     and 12 million individuals reside in the U.S. unlawfully, and 
     illegal immigrants account for about 4.9 percent of the U.S. 
     labor force. According to the Center for American Progress, 
     the total cost to ``round up'' every illegal immigrant within 
     the United States would be $206 to $230 billion over 5 years, 
     a plan that neither is fiscally sound nor accomplishes the 
     goal of bringing the country's undocumented workers out of 
     the underground economy.
       In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill 
     that instantly conferred legal resident status to millions of 
     illegal immigrants. However, the 1986 bill had several flaws. 
     Most importantly, the legislation did not include 
     comprehensive immigration reform that dealt with all facets 
     of the immigration problem. Thus, it failed to meet American 
     business's demand for increased legal immigration. We cannot 
     afford to repeat the mistake of 20 years ago. Nor can we 
     simply confer legal status to presently undocumented workers 
     without asking for something in return. Amnesty, by 
     definition, is a pardon or a free pass granted to a large 
     group of individuals without any consideration in return for 
     the amnesty granted. Requiring earned adjustments, as our 
     bill does, is not amnesty; it is a system that enables 
     undocumented immigrants, who are neither criminals nor 
     terrorists, to earn legal status and to remain productive 
     members of our society.
       The 1986 immigration bill's failure to create a guest 
     worker program to meet the needs of our employers meant the 
     market would step in to accommodate those needs. Market 
     forces created, de facto, an ``illegal guest worker'' 
     program, whereby undocumented workers would enter the country 
     illegally in order to obtain work. Employers benefited under 
     this system because they obtained workers. Undocumented 
     workers benefited because they secured jobs. But an ``illegal 
     guest worker program'' is unacceptable. As the economic 
     motivation to come to the U.S. remains strong, we should 
     provide the avenues and incentives for U.S. employers and 
     foreign workers to only use legal channels. The bill before 
     the U.S. Senate makes it attractive for immigrants to use 
     existing legal channels rather than so-called coyotes who 
     illegally traffic foreign workers into the United States.
       The compromise creates an earned adjustment program for 
     longer-termed undocumented individuals who have deep roots 
     within their communities. It allows for individuals who have 
     been in the United States 5 years before April 5, 2001, to 
     come out of the shadows and legalize their status. However, 
     unlike the 1986 amnesty, which only had minimum requirements, 
     our compromise has strict, objective requirements that must 
     be met in order for the individual to legalize and adjust his 
     status. The individual must undergo security and criminal 
     background checks; must not be determined to be a criminal or 
     a national security threat and deemed inadmissible; must have 
     worked a minimum of 3 of the 5 years prior to April 5, 2001; 
     and must continue to work for a minimum of 6 years after the 
     date of enactment to adjust their status to lawful permanent 
     resident. Most importantly, these individuals are required to 
     ``get in the back of the line'' and cannot adjust their 
     status to lawful permanent resident and get a green card 
     until those waiting in the queue have their opportunity to 
     receive their green card. The individual must also pay a fine 
     of $2,000, pay all applicable back taxes as well as remain 
     current liability, and must demonstrate knowledge of the 
     English language and an understanding of American history and 
     Government.
       The compromise also creates a new status called ``Mandatory 
     Departure and Reentry'' for individuals who have been in the 
     U.S. and employed less than 5 years but before January 7, 
     2004. These individuals must come out of the shadows during 
     the 3-year period after the date of enactment and must leave 
     the U.S. and return to the country in a legal status. The 
     crux of these provisions is that it encourages undocumented 
     individuals to leave the United States and surrender their 
     status as soon as possible, without separating families and 
     without disrupting businesses. If departure occurs within the 
     first year, the individual is not subject to any fines. If 
     departure occurs within the second year, there is a $2,000 
     penalty, and if departure occurs within the last year of the 
     program, the alien must pay a fine of $3,000. Individuals who 
     entered after January 7, 2004, must immediately depart the 
     U.S. and apply through the new visa category created in my 
     bill, the new H-2C program for temporary workers. The total 
     number of H-2C visas available will be 325,000 visas and will 
     adjust, either up or down, according to the market demands. 
     These individuals have lived in the shadows and outside the 
     protection of law for too long. As such, out of fear and 
     desperation, many are abused and discriminated against at the 
     workplace and are afraid to

[[Page 8151]]

     come forward. The compromise achieves the goal by allowing 
     these individuals to come forward.
       Another flaw of the 1986 amnesty was that it did not 
     provide for realistic enforcement. S. 2611 strengthens 
     enforcement of immigration laws and provides the necessary 
     resources for effective border and interior enforcement. S. 
     2611 provides employers with the tools they need to ensure 
     their workforce is authorized, coupled with a commitment to 
     provide the resources necessary to abate the flow of illegal 
     immigrants into this country in the future.
       The 1986 bill failed because it did not address our 
     Nation's economic need for future guest workers. Immigration 
     reform cannot only deal with the current illegal population 
     or just provide tough border enforcement measures, but must 
     also provide avenues for future immigrants to come to this 
     country to labor and to enjoy the fruits of U.S. citizenship. 
     We must require illegal aliens already in the U.S. to come 
     forward, register, and undergo the necessary background 
     checks to ensure our national security, and we must provide a 
     legal avenue for future immigration to meet the future needs 
     of our economy. As we return to the immigration debate, let 
     us not repeat the mistakes of the past but build upon the 
     growing consensus in America to allow immigration to help 
     shape our future.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have talked long enough to have noted 
the arrival of the distinguished ranking member, who I know will 
shortly be seeking recognition. Before he does, let me repeat for him 
the comments made by the distinguished leader of the Democrats, 
complimenting the work Senator Leahy has done, complimenting the work 
which we have done jointly generally in the Judiciary Committee, and 
complimenting the work especially of the Judiciary Committee on this 
immigration bill.
  Senator Leahy and I appeared together earlier today in a tribute to 
fallen police officers and commenting about the need for bulletproof 
jackets. He and I have worked together on a great many matters, with 
our collaboration having originated before either of us got to the 
Senate at the National District Attorneys convention in Philadelphia in 
1969, when he was DA of Burlington and I was DA of Philadelphia. Our 
efforts on bipartisanship, I think, have been followed by other 
Senators, and I think it has been in the interest of the Senate and the 
country to have that kind of cooperation.
  We will be handling the amendments one at a time. But we invite 
Senators who have amendments to be offered tomorrow to come to the 
floor this afternoon to debate those amendments. The chief of staff, 
the staff director, and general counsel, Michael O'Neill, has already 
been in touch with a number of those Senators, urging them to come 
down, following the comments of the distinguished ranking member, to 
start to talk about amendments so we can have abbreviated debate when 
we conclude the first amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

       S. 2611, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006


                      title I--Border enforcement

       Increases border patrol by 400 per year for 5 years 
     (Feinstein-Sessions)
       Authorizes technologies to create a ``virtual fence'' along 
     the Southern border
       Authorizes physical barriers for highly trafficked parts of 
     Arizona's border (Kyl)
       Provides for a study of a possible new fence along the 
     Southern border.
       Creates crimes for eluding immigration inspectors 
     (Sessions) and constructing border tunnels (Kyl, Feinstein)
       Ends the ``catch and release'' practice for other-than-
     Mexicans (Sessions)


                     title II--Interior Enforcement

       Makes suspected gang members inadmissible to, and 
     deportable from, the U.S.
       Clarifies and strengthens alien smuggling laws and 
     increases penalties
       Adds criminal penalties for various immigration-related 
     document fraud
       Provides 20 more alien detention facilities with a capacity 
     of 10,000 (Sessions)

  title iii--employment enforcement (subject to a Grassley substitute 
                  amendment to Title III on the Floor)

       Establishes a nationwide, mandatory verification program 
     for hiring workers
       Limits the number of acceptable hiring documents along with 
     REAL ID standards
       Makes the standard for hiring illegal workers ``knowingly'' 
     or ``with reckless disregard''
       Authorizes 2,000 worksite enforcement agents and 1,000 
     anti-fraud agents


                     Title IV--Guest worker Program

        Creates a new guest worker program (called H-2C) for 
     future workers
       Provides the following in the guest worker program:
       6-year duration with an annual cap of 325,000
       Travel privileges in and out of the U.S., and portability 
     between jobs
       Allows workers to obtain green cards by self-petitioning
       Allows students with advanced degrees in science/math to 
     stay in the U.S.
       Exempts workers with advanced degrees in science/math from 
     green card caps
       Increases the H-1B professional worker visa annual cap from 
     65,000 to 115,000 (with a fluctuating cap)


         Title V--Family-based and Employment-based Green Cards

                    Family-based visas/green cards:

       Exempts Immediate Relatives (spouses, minor children, 
     parents) of U.S. Citizens from the 480,000 numerical cap
       Recaptures unused green cards from past years to reduce the 
     processing backlog
       Increases the per country limits on visas to add fairness 
     in the overall allocation


                  Employment-based visas/green cards:

       Increases the numerical cap from 140,000 to 450,000. This 
     increase sunset after 10 years reverting to 290,000
       Exempts spouses and children from counting against the 
     numerical cap
       Recaptures unused green cards to help reduce the processing 
     backlog
       Eliminates the 5,000 visa limit on unskilled workers who 
     seek a green card


     Title VI--Work Authorization and Legalization of Undocumented 
                              Individuals

       Subtitle A--Access to Earned Adjustment and Mandatory 
     Departure and Reentry
     Cagtegory I--Access to Earned Adjustment--In the U.S. more 
         than 5 years before April 5, 2001
       Security and criminal background checks
       Employed for at least 3 out of the 5 years ending on April 
     5, 2006 and must work at least 6 years after the date of 
     enactment
       Pay all applicable back taxes
       Demonstrate knowledge of English language and U.S. history 
     and government
       Pay $2,000 fine (and all applicable fees)
       Must wait until the current green card backlog is cleared 
     (approximately 6 years)
       Exempt from current green card numerical limitations
     Category II--Mandatory Departure and Reentry--In the U.S. 
         less than 5 years but before January 7, 2004
       Security and criminal background checks
       Must apply within 3 years of date of enactment
       Must be employed before January 7, 2004 and must be 
     continuously employed for at least 60 days
       If departure within 1st year, no fine; if departure within 
     the 2nd year, $2,000 fine; and departure within the last 
     years; $3,000 fine
       Application fee of $1,000
       Grounds of Ineligibility
       Ordered excluded, deported, removed, or agreed to depart 
     voluntarily from the U.S.
       Failed to comply with any request for information by the 
     Sec of DHS
       ``Leave Country and Touch-Base'' Requirement--Must exit the 
     country and reentry through any U.S. land port or through 
     U.S. Visit.
     Category III--U.S. after January 7, 2004
       Required to immediately depart the United States and return 
     in applicable legal channels.
       Waives the current bar denying illegal immigrants admission 
     and allows them an opportunity to return to the United 
     States.
       Subtitle B--Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and 
     Security
       Creates a ``blue card'' program for legalization and 
     adjustment of status for agricultural workers (Feinstein)
       Reforms the current H-2A (temporary guest worker program 
     for agricultural worker)
       Subtitle C--DREAM ACT
       Provides for students here undocumented in the U.S. to 
     obtain a green card (Durbin)


                        Title VII--Miscellaneous

       Subtitle A--Immigration Litigation Reduction
       Increase immigration judges and personnel
       Increases the number of judges on the Board of Immigration 
     Appeals
       Provides for a GAO study on consolidation of immigration 
     appeals
       Subtitle B--Mikulski (citizenship assistance for the armed 
     services)
       Subtitle C--Kohl (State Court Interpreter Grant Program)
       Subtitle D--Domenici (Border Infrastructure/Technology 
     Modernization)
       Subtitle E--Lautenberg (Family Humanitarian Relief)
       Subtitle F--(Other Matters):
       Frist (Non-citizen membership in the armed forces)
       Collins (P visa for minor league athletes)
       Mikulski (H-2B extension)
       Nelson (Surveillance Technologies Programs)
       Isakson (Comprehensive Immigration Efficiency Review)
       Cantwell (Northern Border Prosecution Initiative)
       Hutchison (Southern Border Prosecution Initiative)

[[Page 8152]]

       Harkin (Grant Program to Assist Eligible Applicants)
       Allard (Terrorist Activities)
       Levin (Screening of Municipal Solid Waste)
       Stevens (Access to Immigration Services in Areas)
       Thomas (Border Security on Certain Federal Land)
       Kennedy (Family Unity)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, to start the debate, if I may, as I have 
referred to earlier, I send an amendment to the desk and will ask for 
its consideration when we debate the amendment further tomorrow and 
proceed to a vote. It is an amendment that has been summarized briefly 
which would require border security arrangements to be in place before 
we move ahead to the handling of the 11 million undocumented immigrants 
and the guest worker program.
  I yield the floor for my distinguished ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate turns its attention again 
to comprehensive immigration reform. I hope we can finish the job the 
Judiciary Committee started in March and the Senate began considering 
in April. We need to fix the broken immigration system with tough 
reforms that secure our borders and with reforms that will bring 
millions of undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.
  I commend the majority and minority leaders for continuing to search 
for a procedural agreement, even though Republicans blocked action on a 
comprehensive solution by filibustering before the April recess. 
Democrats supported the bill that was reported by the Judiciary 
Committee, and we were willing to support the Hagel-Martinez 
compromise. In fact, Democrats voted twice in two days for 
comprehensive reform, but the Republican leadership refused to follow 
the commitments it made when the cameras were on, and folded its tent 
by declining to support cloture even on the motion of the Republican 
leader.
  I hope that when the President speaks to the Nation this evening, he 
will strongly encourage his party to support a comprehensive bill in 
the Senate. The President offered some helpful comments in April, but 
these words came too late, as the far right wing of his party had 
already undermined the potential compromise. Democrats were prepared to 
pass a bill in April and are prepared to pass a fair and comprehensive 
bill now.
  The Bush-Cheney administration has gone to great lengths to create 
the impression that it is now committed to strengthening our border 
security. The reality is that very little progress has been made. A 
recent report concluded that the number of people apprehended at our 
borders for illegal entry fell 31 percent under President Bush's watch, 
from a yearly average of 1.52 million between 1996 and 2000 to 1.05 
million between 2001 and 2004. The number of illegal immigrants 
apprehended while in the interior of the country declined 36 percent, 
from a yearly average of roughly 40,000 between 1996 and 2000 to 25,901 
between 2001 and 2004. Audits and fines against employers of illegal 
immigrants have also fallen significantly since President Bush took 
office. Given the vast increases in the number of Border Patrol Agents, 
the decline in enforcement can only be explained by a failure of 
leadership.
  The recent aggressive and well-publicized enforcement efforts to 
detain illegal immigrants are little more than political posturing that 
do little to improve the situation. We need comprehensive reform, 
backed up by leadership committed to using the tools Congress provides, 
not piecemeal political stunts.
  Tonight we expect to hear that the National Guard will be deployed to 
the Mexican border. Once again the administration turns to the fine men 
and women of the National Guard in a crisis. After our intervention 
turned sour in Iraq, the Pentagon turned to the Guard. After the 
governmental-wide failure in responding to Katrina, we turned to the 
Guard. Now, the administration's continual unwillingness to focus on 
our porous border and develop a comprehensive immigration policy, the 
administration turns once again to the Guard. Yet I am continually 
puzzled that this administration, which seems so ready to take 
advantage of the Guard, fights so vigorously against providing this 
essential force with adequate, equipment, a seat at the table in policy 
debates--even adequate health insurance for the men and women of the 
Guard.
  As long as these Guard units operate under the authority of State 
Governors, I believe this action is appropriate. In addition, the 
Federal Government should pick up the full costs of such a deployment 
and be clear about the length of this service. Those costs should not 
be foisted onto the States and their already taxed Guard units. Their 
families have been called upon to sacrifice more than any other group 
of Americans. My heart goes out to the members of the Guard and their 
families.
  Controlling our borders is a national responsibility, and it is 
regrettable that so much of this duty has been punted to the States and 
now to the Guard. The Guard is pitching in above and beyond, balancing 
its already demanding responsibilities to the States, while sending 
troops who have been deployed to Iraq. The Guard served admirably in 
response to Hurricane Katrina when the Federal Government utterly 
failed to respond in a timely or sufficient manner. The Vermont Guard 
and others have been contributing to our national security since the 
immediate aftermath of 9/11. Later tonight, we expect the President 
will announce that after more than 5 years of failing to use the 
authority and funding Congress has provided to strengthen the Border 
Patrol and our border security, it has come to this, militarizing our 
southern border.
  Instead of proposing a budget with robust and complete funding for 
our Border Patrol, the President has focused on providing tax cuts for 
the wealthiest among us. Congress has had to step in time and again to 
create new Border Agent positions and direct that they be filled. 
Instead of urging his party to take early and decisive action to pass 
comprehensive immigration reform as he signaled he would in February 
2001, the President began his second term campaigning to undercut the 
protections of our Social Security system that Americans oppose. While 
the President talks about the importance of our first responders, he 
has proposed 67 percent cuts in the grant program that supplies 
bulletproof vests to police officers, a program that has special 
resonance today when we meet to recognize the 157 officers we lost last 
year.
  Five years of the Bush-Cheney administration's inaction and misplaced 
priorities have done nothing to improve our immigration situation. Its 
time for action, not more talk. The Senate just passed an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill that includes nearly $2 billion for 
border security. These are important programs and we all support them, 
although a number of us believe the Democratic leader was right to 
offer them without taking the funds from our troops' needs in Iraq.
  Border security alone is not enough to solve our immigration 
problems. We must pass a bill--and enact a law--that will not only 
strengthen the security along our borders, but which will also 
encourage millions of people to come out of the shadows. When this is 
accomplished we will be more secure because we will know who is living 
and working in the United States. We must encourage the undocumented to 
come forward, undergo background checks, and pay taxes to earn a place 
on the path to citizenship.
  Just a few weeks ago I went to the White House with a bipartisan 
delegation of Senators to speak with the President. The need for a fair 
and comprehensive immigration bill was the consensus at that meeting 
and I believe the President was sincere when he told us that we had his 
support. I hope he will include that commitment in his statement to the 
nation tonight. If not, I trust that he will not wait to urge 
comprehensive immigration reform on those Republican Senators and the 
Republican House leadership who have yet to endorse our bipartisan 
comprehensive approach. Without Republican support and the intervention 
of

[[Page 8153]]

the President with the recalcitrant factions within his party, this 
effort is unlikely to be successful and the hopes of millions will be 
destroyed. Those who have peacefully demonstrated their dedication to 
justice and comprehensive immigration reform should not be relegated 
back into the shadows.
  The bill that won the bipartisan support of a majority of the 
Judiciary Committee was a compromise that contained the essential 
components that are required for comprehensive immigration reform. 
Before the last recess, I was willing to support a further compromise 
that incorporated the principles of the Hagel-Martinez bill because it 
was proposed by the majority leader as a ``breakthrough'' that would 
allow us to pass immigration reform.
  Immigration reform must be comprehensive if it is to lead to real 
security and real reform. Enforcement-only measures may sound tough, 
but they are insufficient. In these next 2 weeks, the Senate has an 
opportunity, and a responsibility, to pass a bill that addresses our 
broken system with comprehensive reform and puts the pieces in place to 
secure the Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 3961

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Isakson, I call up 
amendment No. 3961, which was earlier sent to the desk by Senator 
Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for Mr. Isakson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3961.

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

 (Purpose: To prohibit the granting of legal status, or adjustment of 
  current status, to any individual who enters or entered the United 
States in violation of Federal law unless the border security measures 
authorized under Title I and section 233 are fully completed and fully 
                              operational)

       On page 53, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 133. BORDER SECURITY CERTIFICATION.

       The Secretary may not implement any program authorized by 
     this Act, or by amendments made under this Act, which grants 
     legal status to any individual, or adjusts the current status 
     of any individual, who enters or entered the United States in 
     violation of Federal law unless the Secretary has submitted a 
     written certification to the President and Congress that the 
     border security measures authorized under Title I and the 
     increases in Federal detention space authorized under section 
     233 have been fully completed and are fully operational.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and send another amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Kyl.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, what was the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator restate his request?
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and send another amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Kyl and myself, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't think this is in keeping with what 
I understand the distinguished Republican leader and the distinguished 
Democratic leader had discussed as a procedure, nor discussed by the 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So I will, for the moment, 
object until such time as we can figure out what is it they want. I 
came in late on the earlier agreement, but I want to make sure the 
Senator from Texas is following what the two leaders had proposed. So I 
will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about a month ago when we were debating 
immigration reform and, unfortunately, because of the inability to get 
amendments heard and debated and voted on, that process was derailed, 
and here we are again. I was under the distinct impression that we were 
actually going to have a chance to offer amendments and then have 
debates and votes. We will work out whatever the misunderstanding is 
between the sides. But my hope is that we will have that opportunity 
because I think the American people are yearning for an honest and 
complete and comprehensive debate about this issue. It affects all of 
us. It affects all of the States that each of us as Senators represent, 
and it represents a clash of our values. We are proudly a nation of 
immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. Unfortunately, it is hard 
to reconcile the second ideal as a nation of laws with the current 
situation we see in this country with our porous border which last year 
allowed 1.1 million people to come across the border, and because we 
only had about 2,000 detention beds, most of those individuals were 
simply subject to what has now become known as the notorious catch-and-
release program. And those who were sent back to Mexico came back again 
in short order, and we saw roughly 250,000 of those individuals who 
were detained at the border came from countries other than Mexico, 
including countries such as Syria, Iran, and other countries of special 
interest, which cause a lot of people, including me, an awful lot of 
concern because it is indicative of the fact that our southern border 
has become a magnet and has become a sieve for illegal immigration, not 
just from Mexico and Central and South America but literally from 
countries all around the world.
  I support comprehensive immigration reform, as a Senator from Texas. 
With about a 1,600-mile border, we understand what the border is about. 
A number of Senators have had the opportunity since this debate began 
to go to the border. I think that has been very instructive for all of 
them. But I can tell you that my constituents live and work along the 
border and have come to know both the tremendous benefits of that 
region of our country and the culture that transcends international 
boundaries, the fact that families have relatives on both sides of the 
border, the fact that for the last 11 years, since NAFTA, the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, was signed by the United States, Canada, 
and Mexico, we have seen a tremendous growth in legal commerce and 
traffic across the border that has been enormously beneficial to all of 
those countries and created an awful lot of new jobs in my State.
  None of us want to jeopardize all of the benefits that attend to the 
fact that we do have a neighbor to our immediate south, Mexico, and the 
benefits that come from the cultural heritage and interaction, but the 
fact is that illegal immigration across the southern border of the 
United States has changed dramatically over the last few years because 
Mexico has been unable to control its southern border and, in fact, has 
become a sort of a land bridge into the United States and created a 
tremendous amount of concern, as it should, in a post-9/11 world. We 
simply have to know who is coming into our country and why they are 
here. We can no longer assume their motives are simply benign.
  I have no doubt that in most instances--perhaps nearly all 
instances--people come to this country for the same reason people have 
always come to America, and that is for a better life. We all 
understand that on a fundamentally human level. But we also understand 
that if we don't control our immigration system, if we don't control 
our borders, not only are we less secure, but literally our way of life 
may be subjected to a huge tsunami of humanity, people from all over 
the world who want to come to the United States, but if they don't do 
so in a controlled way, in a way that complies with our laws and allows 
us to regulate the flow in the pursuit of our national interest, that 
we will have lost something very important, and part of that will be 
the opportunity to provide the sort of prosperity we enjoy today to our 
children and our grandchildren.
  My hope is we will create a legal system of immigration that we will 
be able to regard with pride and that people who, as they always have, 
come here from all around the world through a legal system of 
immigration will become Americans. After all, becoming an American is 
an idea and an ideal. In

[[Page 8154]]

other words, it doesn't matter where your country of origin is, where 
you were born. It doesn't matter how you pronounce your last name. It 
doesn't matter what race you are or what ethnicity you are. When people 
come to America and become Americans, they become part of this vast 
melting pot which we thank God for every day and which has become the 
envy of the world.
  We have benefited enormously from the fact that we are a nation of 
immigrants, but we are in danger because we are no longer a nation of 
laws when it comes to our immigration system.
  During the course of this debate, I will be offering several 
amendments. I want to talk about one of them in a moment. Because of 
the objection, we won't be offering any additional amendments today 
until we can work out the differences between the majority and minority 
side.
  As the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security and 
Citizenship Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it has been 
my great honor to preside over a number of hearings on our broken 
immigration system. That has both caused me a great deal of concern but 
also a sense that there is a lot we can do if we focus on answering the 
practical questions that need to be answered before we can actually fix 
our broken immigration system.
  The Judiciary Committee voted out a bill that I think is fair to say 
bears the authorship of Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy. That then 
came to the floor and now has been amended by Senator Hagel and Senator 
Martinez and is supported by a bipartisan group of Senators.
  I am sorry to say at this point that I am not able to support that 
bill, as amended, but it is my hope that after this debate and during 
the course of the amendment process that we have votes, and hopefully I 
will be able to win a few of those votes on amendments that will 
improve the bill to the point where I feel comfortable supporting the 
Senate bill. That is my hope.
  Regardless, I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and 
our colleagues from the House once the Senate passes a bill, assuming 
we are successful in doing so, in trying to reconcile the differences 
in the approach the Senate intends to take in comprehensive reform and 
the House approach, which is primarily a border security bill.
  I am proud to say that this bill, when I talk about comprehensive 
reform, has a number of components. I mentioned the first is border 
security. I am proud to say that the bill Senator Kyl of Arizona and I 
filed about a year ago now has been largely incorporated into the bill 
before us. When it comes to the work we need to perform for security 
along our border, we need to vastly increase the number of Border 
Patrol agents.
  I understand the President tonight may make some announcement with 
regard to the use of National Guard on a temporary basis to fill in the 
gaps and provide additional boots on the ground so we can get to that 
level of security faster, and I believe we should use all of our 
national assets to provide border security. But I also had the honor 
this morning of going out to Fort Belvoir, where the Army Materiel 
Command provided a demonstration to me with some of the unmanned aerial 
vehicles and ground sensors, the radars, the thermal imagery, and so 
forth, that the military has developed for force protection. It has 
obvious applications in providing the Department of Homeland Security 
additional technology which will allow us to secure our border. Here 
again, the problem is not a shortage of ideas; the problem is the 
shortage of assets, including human assets and technological assets 
that will actually allow the Department of Homeland Security to 
accomplish the goal of border security. We have a long way to go 
between ideas and concepts and actually building the infrastructure, 
actually purchasing the technology and training people to operate it.
  That is one reason I look forward to further debate on Senator 
Isakson's amendment currently pending that provides a trigger. In 
essence it is saying the rest of the provisions of the bill will not be 
implemented until such time as the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security certifies that the border security provisions have, 
in fact, been implemented. I think that is a significant proposal.
  I commend to my colleagues an article that I read this morning called 
``Can Immigration Reform Work?'' This is an article written by Lawrence 
B. Lindsey, who was the former chief economic adviser for President 
Bush. Mr. Lindsey writes as an advocate of comprehensive immigration 
reform, as am I, but he asks some very practical questions which I 
think have to be answered during the course of this debate.
  First of all, advocates of the current bill pending on the floor 
acknowledge that beneficiaries of the provisions of the bill, the 12 
million or so who will benefit from the earned legalization--or some 
might call it amnesty based on its similarity with the amnesty of 
1986--but the argument is that the beneficiaries of this provision of 
the bill will have to go to the back of the line. Again, I commend the 
Lindsey article to my colleagues.
  The question is: The back of which line? Basically what this bill 
does is it allows people who are currently here in an unauthorized 
status; that is, they have come either in violation of the immigration 
laws or they have come here legally and have overstayed in violation of 
the immigration laws, it allows them 6 years before they can then 
receive a green card. A green card confers legal permanent residency. 
After 5 more years, in other words, a total of 11 years, they can then 
apply for and receive American citizenship.
  The problem with the current bill on the floor is that it essentially 
guarantees the 12 million a green card and all they have to do is stay 
where they are. In other words, the line does not start in America; the 
line starts at the consulate in Hong Kong or in Mexico City or in 
Bogota, Colombia, or in some other place around the world where people 
would apply for a green card, not here in the United States. What they 
are essentially saying is people under this current bill can break in 
line in front of those who have been waiting patiently outside the 
country, but break in line for those awaiting citizenship who otherwise 
would have to wait outside the country. There is something, it seems to 
me, fundamentally unfair about line-jumping, about breaking in line, 
and many have expressed concerns, and I am one of those who have the 
concerns, about rewarding people for line-jumping.
  Another aspect of Mr. Lindsey's article, which I again commend to my 
colleagues because, again, these are practical questions: How are you 
going to solve this problem? And I stand here as someone who is 
interested in solving the problem and as a supporter of comprehensive 
immigration reform. But we have to do better than the bill that is 
currently on the floor. That is why I strongly urge my colleagues to 
study it and also to listen to the amendments, and hopefully we can 
improve it.
  The other question that Mr. Lindsey raises is the sheer immensity of 
the program proposed in the Hagel-Martinez compromise. In 2004, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service issued almost 1 million green 
cards and naturalized 537,000 people. Contrast that with what this bill 
would do. It would give green cards to about 12 million people in one 
fell swoop and make them eligible for citizenship 6 years later, which 
is roughly a twelvefold increase in the workload of the agencies and 
the people who are actually supposed to make this work.
  I hope all of us will pay close attention to whether this thing that 
we are creating, this comprehensive immigration reform, can actually 
work. Part of making it work is going to be making sure there are the 
people and the processes, the databases, the computers, the cards, all 
of the things that are going to be necessary to actually make it 
function as intended. If not, we are going to be swamped by a tsunami 
of newly legalized people seeking documentation without any real 
ability to actually respond to that.
  The third issue he raises is the need for what he calls a certificate 
of legal

[[Page 8155]]

residency. We are going to have to--and the bill does provide, and 
there will be some additional debate about this--a work site 
verification program, which is absolutely critical to the functioning 
of comprehensive immigration reform. I think it needs to be beefed up 
and improved because what we need to provide employers is a way to 
swipe a card through a card reader and then almost immediately the 
light turns green and that means that person can work here legally. If 
it is red, they can't. Right now, employers can be presented some 
combination of up to 19 different documents to prove eligibility to 
work in the United States, and what happens is the human smugglers and 
those who benefit from this phenomenon provide a whole host of 
counterfeit documents.
  In other words, there are millions who generate fake documents such 
as driver's licenses, Social Security cards, and birth certificates. So 
we need a secure identification card that can help us as part of this 
enforcement regime because if we don't, then we will find ourselves 5 
years or 10 years from now in the same fix we are in today, except 
probably worse.
  I say that because in 1986 the Congress thought it was fixing this 
problem once and for all when it granted what everyone acknowledges was 
an amnesty. It bears a lot of resemblance to the proposal that is on 
the floor today. Yet some say: Well, it is not really amnesty, it is 
earned legalization. Well, whatever it is, it looks very similar, if 
not its identical twin. But everyone I think will agree that the 
amnesty in 1986 was a complete and total failure, probably for one of 
two reasons.
  Some say: Well, it is because we didn't really have any provision for 
a legal work force, a temporary worker program as part of that. But I 
think most people would agree that it was mainly a failure of work site 
verification and employer sanctions. There have been virtually no 
employer sanctions prosecuted by the Federal officials responsible for 
that, and part of the reason has been because it is very hard for 
employers to know whether the person they are in fact hiring is legally 
eligible to work in the United States.
  We can figure this one out. It is not rocket science. If we can go 
into a convenience store and buy a bag of chips and a Coca Cola and 
hand the clerk our card and they swipe it and in a matter of seconds it 
is authorized, we can figure this one out. We have a variety of 
identification cards and biometric identifiers to help verify that the 
person who holds the card is in fact the same person whose name is on 
the card. So we can figure that out. I will talk more about that later.
  I think the proponents of this bill as written need to convince the 
American people that this time we are serious, that we are not going to 
pull the rug out from under the American people if they put their 
confidence in the solution proffered by this bill. I remember what my 
dad always said: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on 
me. The American people can be enormously forgiving and tolerant. But 
if they feel as if the Federal Government is simply not serious about 
this and is going to pan this bill off as strict on enforcement and not 
fund it and not implement it, and not be serious about it, I think 
there is going to be a terrible price to be paid. Unfortunately, it 
will be deserved if we are not serious about doing what we say we are 
going to do when it comes to enforcement, including work site 
verification.
  I want to talk briefly about an amendment I tried to offer, but there 
was an objection. Hopefully, we will work this out. This was actually 
the amendment that was pending by Senator Kyl and myself back about a 
month ago when this whole debate got derailed because we couldn't get 
any votes on the amendments and basically we ended up going nowhere. 
After a month now, we are back here again. Hopefully, we are locked and 
loaded and ready to proceed in the regular order, which means that in 
the world's greatest deliberative body we will actually have debates 
and we will actually have votes and majorities will prevail and people 
who don't get the majority vote will lose. While none of us likes to 
lose, that is the process, and that should be the process.
  Unfortunately, we are here a month later, but now I hope we have an 
opportunity to have those debates and to have those votes and to 
proceed to passage of a good bill.
  The amendment I am referring to specifically would exclude from the 
benefits of the bill on the floor--and what I mean by that is the 12 
million people who are here in an unauthorized status, who either came 
illegally or who overstayed their legal authorization; they are here in 
violation of our immigration laws. It would exclude from amnesty or 
earned legalization or whatever you want to call it the benefits for 
convicted felons. In other words, convicted felons would not get 
amnesty under this bill if this amendment passes. People who have 
committed at least three misdemeanors would not get amnesty under this 
bill if this amendment is agreed to and passes. Finally, it would 
exclude the benefits of the bill to those it applies to, those who have 
actually had their day in court and lost and simply melted into this 
huge American landscape.
  What I mean by that is they are absconders. In other words, they are 
people who have been caught in violation of the law, people who have 
had their day in court, who have exhausted their remedies, and then 
refused to show up when it came time to go back home. These are known 
as absconders.
  What this amendment would do is say, if you are an absconder, then 
you don't get the benefit of the amnesty because you have already had 
your one bite at the apple, and we are not going to give you two bites 
at the apple. I don't think any Americans really believe that it is 
just OK to ignore a lawful court order. How many Americans, for 
example, after receiving a subpoena to show up in court or maybe a jury 
summons, simply ignore it and skip the date?
  Today in the United States, there are 544,000--544,000--aliens who 
have been ordered deported but then have gone underground. That is more 
than a half million people who simply chose to ignore a lawful court 
order. Under current law, it is a felony offense punishable by up to 4 
years in jail to not comply with a deportation order. So let's be 
clear. We are not talking about civil violations. We are talking about 
criminals, people who not only have overstayed their legal 
authorization or who have come in illegally and been caught; we are 
talking about people who have had their day in court and simply ignored 
the judgment of the court and gone underground.
  I believe this amendment is indicative of whether we will continue to 
tolerate and reward those who violate our immigration laws.
  The current bill increases penalties and would impose a mandatory 
minimum criminal sentence of 6 months on any alien who fails to leave 
the country after being ordered deported.
  The current bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to list 
absconders in the NCIC, the national database, criminal database, so 
that State and local police officers can arrest them when they are 
encountered during regular traffic stops.
  These are both steps in the right direction, I believe. But then, 
oddly in the same bill, the same proposal on the floor, it would allow 
those same individuals to apply for legalization and would prohibit the 
Department of Homeland Security from apprehending or detaining these 
same aliens. In other words, this bill simultaneously increases 
criminal penalties for failing to follow a court order but then rewards 
the same criminal act with an easier path to a green card. I do not 
think there is a better example of Congress sending mixed signals on 
immigration reform. If we are going to avoid the mistakes of 1986 and 
avoid the massive buildup of people who are in our country out of 
status, we have to create a system that encourages self-compliance by 
illegal aliens.
  Each year, there are 300,000 deportation hearings. What is the point 
of conducting those hearings if those who are ultimately ordered 
deported after they have had their day in court simply go

[[Page 8156]]

underground and ignore a lawful court order? If the absconder rate is 
about 85 percent today, what will it be in the future if we reward 
those who fail to comply with amnesty? The aliens who comply and who 
leave the country would not be eligible for amnesty. So the message, at 
least so far as the bill on the floor is concerned, is you are better 
off violating the law, hunkering down, melting into the landscape, and 
then you are going to get amnesty. But if you actually comply with a 
lawful court order and leave, then you are not entitled to the benefits 
under the bill--exactly the opposite of the message we ought to be 
sending. We need to decide whether we are more interested in granting 
amnesty than we are in reforming the immigration laws and restoring 
confidence in the immigration system.
  Without this amendment, the current bill would grant amnesty to 
aliens who committed felony offenses, thereby encouraging further 
violations of immigration and undermining the integrity of our 
immigration court system.
  Some may argue that the majority of aliens deported never receive 
notice that they are in proceedings. That is simply not true. 
Deportation proceedings are initiated when written notice is provided 
to the alien, which is almost always done when that individual is 
apprehended. The notice, informally called a notice to appear, advises 
the recipient of three things: No. 1, the conduct alleged to be in 
violation of the law; No. 2, the alien's obligation to provide the 
Government with a written record of an address; and No. 3, the 
consequences of failure to provide or update the address on record with 
the Government.
  The Government is also required by statute to provide notice to the 
alien of any change or postponement of the proceedings. Just as in any 
other civil or criminal proceeding, the alien has an obligation to 
provide a current address. If that were not the case, how would the 
immigration courts administer the 300,000-plus cases they hear each 
year?
  So what happens if the alien fails to appear at the hearing? The 
court may order the alien removed in absentia only if the Government 
establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the 
written notice was provided to the alien and that the alien is, in 
fact, deportable. The court may rescind the order if, within 6 months 
of the order, the alien establishes that he did not receive notice of 
the hearing or if exceptional circumstances prevented the alien from 
appearing. This amendment we are offering--will offer when permitted--
includes the same waiver standard, so any alien who establishes that he 
or she did not receive notice as required or was unable to appear at a 
hearing because of a medical emergency or other exceptional 
circumstance remains eligible to apply.
  The text of the amendment is unambiguous. It would not apply to any 
alien who entered without inspection, overstayed a visa, or violated 
their visa status unless the alien has had his or her day in court and 
been ordered deported. To avoid any confusion, this amendment uses the 
exact language as in the current Immigration and Nationality Act.
  In conclusion, let me say that national security demands that we know 
who is living within our borders, especially since 9/11. We must reform 
our immigration laws in order to bring millions of those who are living 
outside of the law out of the shadows and in compliance with that law. 
But success of immigration reform cannot be measured solely on how many 
aliens obtain legal status. The 1986 amnesty bill brought millions of 
illegal aliens out of shadows. Yet Congress never lived up to its 
commitment to enforce the law at the border and at the worksite. Today, 
20 years since the 1986 amnesty, the continued failure to enforce the 
law has resulted in a new class of illegal aliens that is estimated to 
be approximately 12 million. That is four times larger than 20 years 
ago.
  I share the goal of comprehensive reform and of bringing those 12 
million illegal aliens out of the shadows and into compliance with the 
law. In fact, I believe we ought to give them a second chance to 
reenter the country in a legal status. But I also believe that we 
should not repeat the failures of 1986 and restore credibility and law 
and order to the immigration system. The current bill, without any 
amendment, rewards criminal behavior and will undermine the 
Government's ability to enforce the immigration laws. My amendment, 
which only excludes criminals from obtaining legal status, will reveal 
whether we are really serious about reforming our immigration laws or 
if we are strictly interested in granting legal status to as many 
illegal aliens as possible, irrespective of whether they are criminals 
or whether rewarding them would repeat the failures of 1986.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Massachusetts 
is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the start of this week and the 
prospect of a good and fair debate on the whole issue of our borders 
and how we are going to deal with immigration reform. There are some 
exceedingly important public policy issues and questions that have to 
be decided. But it certainly appears that the Senate itself is prepared 
to take votes on these measures. I believe that is certainly the way we 
ought to proceed.
  I hope as we start the debate we understand there are a lot of 
misstate-
ments about the different positions which have been outlined in the 
course of this debate. It is going to be important for the American 
people to listen to those of us who are putting forward proposals--I 
will outline briefly the proposal of Senator McCain and myself--and 
then to listen to those who are supportive of those proposals. In this 
debate, not unlike other debates, we will find those who misrepresent 
our proposal, distort our proposal, and then differ with it. That is a 
rather tried, true, tested process around here. Why should I believe 
this debate might be different? Maybe that is hoping for too much.
  These are tough enough choices and decisions for this body to make. 
Hopefully we will have the opportunity to have a fair debate on the 
substance of these matters. That is certainly what I look forward to. I 
know Senator McCain looks forward to that. That is certainly in the 
tradition of this great legislative body.
  I will take just a few minutes this afternoon to outline in broad 
terms the proposal Senator McCain and I supported. We go back, Senator 
McCain and I.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield briefly?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair--the Senator, because of 
airplane connections today, wasn't here. I made a statement on this 
legislation. One of the things I want to make sure the Senator from 
Massachusetts understands is that I completed my statement this morning 
saying that I hope we can have bipartisan, good debate on this 
legislation; this legislation is so badly needed.
  I also want the Senator from Massachusetts to understand that as far 
as I am concerned, the key to our having been able to move forward on 
this legislation is the work done by the Democratic Senator from the 
State of Massachusetts, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and the 
Republican Senator from Arizona, the senior Senator from Arizona. The 
Kennedy-McCain legislation is the framework for doing something to 
solve a problem that needs to be solved. I hope we can move forward on 
this matter in a bipartisan, constructive way.
  I said this morning there are strong feelings on all sides of this 
issue, as there should be. But I hope the Senator from Massachusetts 
agrees with me that it is imperative that this legislation be completed 
and that--the Senator, being the modest person he is, would not agree 
with me about the importance of the Kennedy-McCain bill--but I want the 
Senator to know that I believe the key to our moving forward was the 
work done on this matter in many private meetings, some public 
meetings, with you and the Senator from Arizona. I want to compliment 
and applaud you for the work done,

[[Page 8157]]

making it possible to be at the point we are in this legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our leader, Senator Reid, for 
both his support and encouragement, working with Senator Frist to bring 
us to this point. That was a real challenge.
  I thank him for his comments. If he will remain on the floor for just 
a moment? I am very hopeful that, as he outlined in his statement, we 
will have a bipartisan approach to an issue of enormous importance--the 
security of our borders. How are we going to treat the 12 million 
individuals who are here now, the overwhelming majority of whom want to 
play by the rules, work hard, be part of the American process and 
dream, like the tradition of so many other immigrant groups? We have 
tough enforcement issues. We have issues of fairness. And I thank the 
Senator for his comments.
  The Senator knows the history of this institution. To find the type 
of bipartisanship which we have had on this issue, we would have to go 
back, frankly, to almost the time of the civil rights laws. Maybe the 
action to end the war in Vietnam. We have not had that kind of 
bipartisanship in a major policy issue that I know of in any recent 
time.
  As the Senator from Nevada has pointed out, we are facing an issue of 
enormous importance with regard to our national security. This is a 
defining issue of who will eventually have that great opportunity of 
participating as an American citizen, really the greatest achievement, 
in personal terms, for so many people who earn that citizenship. We are 
back for a few moments to a time when the Senate of the United States, 
Republicans and Democrats, came together to take action on a 
controversial and difficult issue but one that was clearly in the 
national interest.
  I think the comments of the Senator remind us of that tradition. That 
is what this institution has done when it has been at its best. We did 
it with Medicare. We did it with civil rights. We did it on the issues 
of ending the war. We did it with the progress we have made on 
disability issues, knocking down the walls of disability and gender. On 
all of these issues, we came together. We had strong bipartisan 
majorities on them. That is not something we have seen very much of, I 
would say, in very recent times. We have that opportunity now.
  As I hear the Senator, he is calling on us to really try to make sure 
that this institution is going to act in its great traditions and make 
something worthy of remembering. I think that is what I hear from the 
Senator, and I thank him for that expression.
  As I was saying, I thank our leaders for bringing us to where we are. 
I am grateful for the opportunity of working with Senator McCain to 
bring forward this reform bill and for the work Senator Hagel, Senator 
Martinez, and so many others have brought us to this point. As we have 
talked about at other times, 2\1/2\ years ago I had legislation, and 
Senator McCain had legislation maybe 2\1/2\ years ago. We began to come 
together. About that time, Senator Hagel had legislation, somewhat 
different from that of Senator McCain and me. They are all working to 
try to come together in a common spirit to address this issue.
  What we now have is something that has come out of our Judiciary 
Committee with a 12-to-6 bipartisan vote. We have now before the Senate 
strong legislation that will deal with our national security concerns 
and also deal with the issue of earned--and we mean earned--
legalization and tough enforcement at the workplace.
  I think we have a good combination. I am very grateful to all those 
who have been a part of this process. So many have added so much to 
help get us where we are today.
  We recall that throughout our history courageous immigrants have 
provided the hard work, the strong family, and the love of country 
which defines the American spirit. They dug our canals, built our 
railroads, they advanced our science, fostered our innovation, and they 
fought in our wars. And 60,000 have served our colors with pride in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Those are the permanent resident aliens that are in the service in 
Iraq and Afghanistan--and other places around the world. They became 
part of the American dream.
  Immigrants have been the heart and muscle that has moved this country 
forward for 400 years and helped make America the envy of the world.
  Last month, we were reminded, in a personal way, of the contributions 
of immigrants by the moving stories related by Senator Domenici and 
Senator Martinez. Senator Domenici told how his parents came here from 
Italy with nothing. His father earned his citizenship through his 
service in the Army in the first World War. His mother was here for 
many years before gaining her legal status and once faced deportation 
but later became an American citizen. The Domenici's worked hard, 
learned English, built a successful grocery business and one of their 
children went on to become a distinguished and respected Senator.
  Senator Martinez of Florida told us about his family's flight from 
Cuba to begin a new life in America. A young Martinez was 15 years old 
when his family escaped from Cuba to seek a new life of freedom. And 
similar to millions before him, his family worked hard, learned 
English, and earned their success in Florida. Today, Mel Martinez was 
not only a Cabinet Secretary but was elected by the people of Florida 
to serve as their Senator.
  This is the immigrant story.
  We are a great people because that story has been repeated millions 
of times over many generations.
  As in the past, today's immigrants are tomorrow's Americans, 
regardless of where they came from or how they got here. They and their 
children and grandchildren will contribute anew to our national life.
  I have mentioned that from my office in the JFK Building in Boston, I 
can look out the window and see the pier where my great-grandparents 
landed from Ireland in 1848--and the stairs they walked up too. The 
immigrants called them the ``golden stairs'' because it offered the 
golden hope of opportunity for them. I can look out the window and see 
those same eight stairs where all of them walked up and entered Boston 
to begin their lives and begin earning their American citizenship.
  It is something that is not in our remote past. Every American knows 
how our immigration system is currently broken. It falls short of 
meeting our security needs and strengthening our economy, upholding our 
values--and what we have tried in the past no longer works today.
  We have heard already the issue--Well, we already had amnesty in 
1986, and it didn't help us because we didn't have enforcement. But 
this bill is not amnesty. Amnesty was in 1986, when we said we forgive 
you--and we were also supposed to have effective enforcement by 
employers. They were to take those not provided with amnesty and to 
enforce the law. That was never done under Republican or Democratic 
administrations. But we are not talking about that now.
  We are talking about an entirely different situation.
  There was a time when oceans and borders protected us and enabled us 
to better control immigration. That is no longer the case today. In the 
past decade, we have spent more than $20 billion to triple our border 
patrols and build fences. But we have learned that border enforcement 
alone will not work. Building fences and putting more agents on the 
border is doomed to fail. It is a strategy that will make us weaker, 
not stronger, in dealing with immigration.
  Ten years ago we had 40,000 individuals coming across the border 
illegally. We have spent $20 billion, and we have tripled the number of 
border agents. We added $10 billion more in terms of border security, 
and now we have more than 400,000 individuals crossing illegally. You 
can estimate. Some will say it is 600,000 or 700,000. Border security 
enforcement in and of itself will not work.
  We need an immigration program for the 21st century that is worthy of 
our heritage as a nation of immigrants--one that is tough, smart and 
fair; one

[[Page 8158]]

that sees to our security and reflects our humanity.
  I believe the compromise legislation before us meets that test.
  It is four parts.
  First, it mandates very tough enforcement. It doubles our Border 
Patrol; builds fences and barriers along the border, and requires 
state-of-the-art technology in fighting illegal immigration. It 
increases enforcement against employers who hire undocumented workers, 
and requires tamper-proof immigration documents so that employers can 
determine who can and cannot work in America.
  It fully implements a system for keeping track who comes to our 
country and when they leave. It establishes new penalties against 
digging tunnels under the border and for evading immigration officials. 
It sets up a massive new effort to shut down criminal syndicates that 
smuggle immigrants into the country. It expands the capacity of our 
immigration detention facilities and grants new authority to detain 
dangerous immigrants. It provides vast new authorities to identify and 
remove terrorists and criminals.
  In the area of border enforcement, those needs are self-evident. We 
are talking specifically about the border with 12,000 new Border Patrol 
agents, 2,000 more than were actually requested in the 9/11 Commission. 
It creates the high-technology ``virtual fence.'' This is key. Using 
newer kinds of technology for a ``virtual fence.''
  I think it is vastly more effective than putting a chain fence along 
1,800 miles of border.
  It expands the exit-entry security system at land borders and 
airports so we can know people coming in and when they leave. We can do 
that more effectively.
  It deals with records and vehicle barriers. It authorizes permanent 
highway check points near the border. It authorizes the additional 
ports of entry along the land borders and new criminal penalties for 
tunnels.
  This is a problem in southern California as Senator Feinstein pointed 
out.
  They have a new land and water surveillance plan at present time. It 
can be expanded and has been effective to secure Mexico's southern 
borders.
  Ours is the only plan that recognizes that, if you are going to be 
effective, you have to also deal with the countries in Central America 
and deal with the challenges that we are facing from individuals in 
South America coming across.
  We have to work with Mexico in an effective way to limit the number 
of people coming into Mexico, and also more effective in terms of the 
people coming into Central America--and to do that in ways that work, 
with the cooperation of those countries. We can do that.
  It also deals with the alien smuggling and requires the additional 
time for detention.
  That is one aspect of what we have at the border.
  Another one is interior, and we have worksites.
  Those are the three elements of enforcement.
  We deal with money laundering.
  We provide for fraud-proof immigration documents with biometrics.
  Unless you effectively deal with documents, you are never going to 
get a handle on the constant fraudulent production of documents. We are 
doing that with biometrics. That is going to be enormously effective. 
It is the technology.
  We have the new border fences and the other elements in terms of 
interior.
  This is the result of a good many hours we spent in the Judiciary 
Committee.
  The third aspect of enforcement is in the workforce. We have added 
10,000 worksite inspectors.
  The fact is we have not had inspection of worksites, as I mentioned, 
under either Republican or Democratic administrations. They have been a 
joke. Therefore, employers have hired undocumented, and illegal 
workers, with all kinds of implications--driving wages down, work 
conditions down, exploitation of these individuals, all of that.
  That will be ultimately changed because we have effective 
enforcement.
  We have a process by which we are going to insist on valid 
documentation.
  These are the various kinds of provisions. They are all outlined in 
the legislation. I think they are enormously compelling.
  These are some of the new enforcement tools that our bill provides. 
These steps alone are not enough.
  Therefore, the second step in our bill acknowledges that the 11 
million undocumented immigrants who are already here are not going 
away. But they also have something to offer to our communities and to 
our country. Common sense says we cannot and should not embark on a 
massive deportation program. That would disrupt communities and 
businesses and it would uproot families.
  What are you going to do when there are children who are citizens? 
Are we going to deport their parents because they are undocumented? 
There is a whole host of families like that. That would disrupt 
families. And cost money. Of course, the best estimate is some $240 
billion, requiring a caravan of buses stretching from Alaska all the 
way through California. Instead, we should recognize the desire of 
these immigrants to contribute to America.
  Our bill provides a means for them to earn the privilege of American 
citizenship. It is not amnesty. Amnesty means forgiveness. Amnesty 
means going ahead of the line. No one goes to the head of the line. 
They go to the back of the line. They do not only go to the back of 
line for current applicants, but they go to the back of the line for 
everyone who is in line today. They go to the back of the line in terms 
of their ability to adjust their status. They have to pay the penalty. 
They have to learn English. They have to demonstrate that they have no 
criminal activities. And they have to demonstrate that they are 
working.
  The fastest they can be able to earn their citizenship is 11 years. 
They have to demonstrate that they are learning English. They are 
playing by the rules; they are in no trouble with the law; they pay the 
penalty at the beginning and another penalty at the end.
  They have that opportunity of going to the back of the line, and at 
the end of 11 years, they have the opportunity of becoming citizens.
  That is not what we will hear during the debate. It is so easy for 
those who are opposed to our program who will say that is amnesty; that 
is just amnesty. But it isn't. They pay a penalty and go to the back of 
the line. And they have to earn citizenship over a long period of time.
  They have to demonstrate that they are contributing something to 
America over 11 years. That is called earning the right to become a 
citizen.
  The alternative, with all due respect to all of those who are out 
here talking about deportation. They ought to get it straight.
  Which are they for? There is no in between.
  Members can say: We don't like the McCain-Kennedy approach, which is 
basically supported by the Hagel. We don't like that. That is the 
alternative. There isn't another one that I know of.
  We should recognize the desire that many of these immigrants want to 
contribute to America. And our bill provides the means for them to earn 
the privilege of American citizenship.
  They must pay taxes. There is a penalty for coming illegally. They 
have to learn English and obey our laws over several years.
  Third, our bill recognizes that we must provide legal challenges for 
future immigrants so that employers are not tempted to hire illegal 
immigrants in the future.
  That is all part of bringing the people out of the shadows. The 
reality is, immigrants will come and employers will hire them even if 
we erect miles and miles of new fences. It is far better for future 
immigrants to be here legally so they are out of the shadows and 
protected by our laws rather than used illegally to undermine American 
wages and American jobs. For that reason, our bill establishes a 
program to allow workers to come here legally, to work here temporarily 
with the prospect of earning their way to permanent status

[[Page 8159]]

in the future. They have to demonstrate the prevailing wage that will 
be available to them, and they will then have the document that will 
give them the assurance of employment. They will be able to avoid that 
kind of exploitation. That is an important part of this proposal.
  That is our program. It has been embraced by employers, workers, 
Republicans, Democrats, civil rights groups, immigration experts, 
immigrant groups, and more. We are all waiting to hear what the 
President has to say about it in his national immigration address this 
evening.
  President Bush is to be commended for his courage and leadership in 
advancing the immigration debate in our Nation. As a former Governor of 
a border State, he understands the issue and appreciates what is at 
stake. He knows the many contributions of immigrants to our Nation. 
Tonight, we need President Bush to speak in a clear, strong voice in 
favor of this comprehensive, bipartisan, commonsense immigration plan. 
Each of its three elements is necessary to fix our broken system. None 
will work in isolation from the others. That is the key aspect. All 
three steps must be implemented at the same time if we are to restore 
the integrity of American immigration. All of them are based upon 
conforming with the law, both in terms of the border and those who 
might be guests.
  The President must state unequivocally that enforcement-only 
approaches are a failed strategy and ``enforcement-first'' may make a 
tidy bumper sticker slogan, but it is not a strategy for success. 
However, I urge the President not to distract the Nation from the 
urgent work of immigration reform. I know we will hear tonight from the 
President about the possibilities of deployment of the National Guard 
along the border. All are very much aware that our National Guard is 
stretched, and stretched thin; that our National Guard has important 
responsibilities in Western States to manage fires. Even up in my 
State, as of today, we have dramatic floods in the northeast 
communities in my State of Massachusetts. We are facing the hurricane 
season where the National Guard has played an absolutely key and 
indispensable role.
  We understand the way the administration is considering using the 
National Guard; not putting them on the front line of deployment but 
having them more in a support role. That would certainly make sense 
because our border guards have some 15 weeks of training in how to deal 
with these challenges. To be effective, that is necessary training.
  We will hear more about this issue this evening. It is important we 
have the full story from the administration about the utilization of 
the National Guard. There are important issues and questions that we 
will all have and we will look forward to the responses by the 
administration.
  I believe our national attention and our valuable tax dollars should 
be spent on the hiring and training of Border Patrol agents and 
immigration officers needed along the border. That is what we have in 
this proposal when we are talking about the expanded number of border 
agents as recommended not only by our Judiciary Committee but also by 
the 9/11 Commission. We believe this is the way to move.
  In a way, the reform debate is much larger and far reaching than the 
issue of immigration alone. It is about the kind of America we have 
been and the even stronger America we hope to become. It is about a 
land whose greatest strength is the way we treat our neighbors and care 
for our fellow citizens. It is about opening doors of opportunity to 
unleash the talents and strengths of everyone in the land, regardless 
of color or creed, so that we face the future with hope and 
determination. That is what this debate is all about.
  We see it in the faces of hundreds of thousands who have marched for 
opportunity in cities across our land. We see it with our employers who 
know that a skilled, diverse workforce is essential to our 
competitiveness in the global economy. We see it with our military 
leaders who are recruiting a diverse fighting force to think in new 
ways as we deal with our dangerous world.
  Just as in the past, this debate comes with controversy. This has 
always been the case throughout our immigrant history. Just as it was 
with the struggle for civil rights in the 1960s, who today would argue 
that Italian or Irish or Catholic or Jewish immigrants should be 
excluded? And just the same, who would argue that African Americans 
should be excluded from our schools, or that discrimination against the 
hiring of Latinos is acceptable in America today?
  Similarly, over the next several days, as the Senate debates 
immigration, there will be strongly felt discussion and hotly contested 
amendments. Many of these amendments, if adopted, would end the 
prospects for comprehensive reform. The outcome of these amendments 
will determine what vision of America we will pursue--one mired in fear 
that seeks to preserve the status quo, or one anchored in hope that 
looks with optimism to America's future. That is the issue behind this 
whole debate.
  I look forward to participating in the debate. Hopefully, we will 
have a positive outcome.
  I see my friend and colleague from West Virginia in the Senate. I 
know he is eager to speak. I had one other item that I will address 
very quickly if I could. It is timely. Then I will yield the floor.


                                Medicare

  Mr. President, for seniors in Medicare today, it is judgment day, the 
day when the misjudgments, the failures, the basic errors of the 
competence in implementing the Republican Medicare law will bite into 
the savings of 8 million seniors across America. Today, the situation 
will get worse as seniors are hit with financial penalties if they are 
unable to wade through the complicated tangle of private insurance 
plans and the Part D Program.
  In Massachusetts, citizens have over 45 stand-alone drug coverage 
plans and a number of HMO plans to choose from, each with different 
drugs offered at different prices. Seniors have to work out which plan 
covers which drug at which price, with what copayment, what deductible, 
for dozens of separate plans. They struggle with long waits on the 
Medicare help line and inaccurate and frequently changing information 
about the program as even the administration struggles to understand 
and explain it.
  Today, my State, Massachusetts, is currently under a state of 
emergency due to major flooding in the State. I have requested for all 
of Massachusetts an extension of the Part D deadline in our State. Many 
seniors have been evacuated from their homes, others have no 
electricity, and many have no ability to get to the Post Office or to 
counselors to discuss enrollment due to the flooded roads.
  I urge the administration to extend the deadline for these seniors. 
The administration has said that their computer programs will enable 
seniors to decide which plans to choose, but not every senior is 
computer literate, and many do not have access to the Internet. The 
program is so confusing that even HHS Secretary Leavitt could not work 
out which drug program was right for his parents. Imagine how difficult 
the choice is for seniors who do not have the HHS Secretary to help 
them? If seniors have not worked through all of that confusion by 
today's arbitrary and punitive deadline, the Republican Medicare law 
hits them with a fine that grows month after month for as long as they 
do not sign up for the program.
  Every Member of the Senate and our staffs and the employees of every 
Federal agency can obtain health insurance through the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Plan. It is voluntary. Most people sign up 
for coverage, but some may decide not to because they are included in a 
spouse's policy or have some other coverage.
  Are Members of Congress who decide not to sign up for the Federal 
coverage hit with extra payments when they enroll at a later date? Of 
course not. But the GOP law says seniors who do not sign up by today's 
deadline in the Medicare Program will have to pay a penalty when they 
sign up later. Those

[[Page 8160]]

payments will go up and up and up the longer the seniors decide not to 
enroll.
  The Republican majority is not rushing to impose fines on Members of 
Congress who do not sign up for health care by some arbitrary date, but 
that does not stop them from enacting a law that penalizes seniors who 
miss the Medicare deadline.
  Senator Bill Nelson has introduced important legislation to let 
seniors make their selection of a drug program without being coerced 
into a premature choice by today's deadline. The administration says 
enrolling in the drug benefit is entirely voluntary, but it is hardly 
voluntary if you have to pay a fine when you did not join by an 
arbitrary deadline. The proposal Senator Nelson has offered will waive 
the penalties that seniors would otherwise have to pay for not signing 
up for a drug plan in time.
  The fiasco of today's punitive deadline is all the more serious 
because enactment of a good Medicare drug program could and should have 
been a chance to make real progress in meeting the health care needs of 
American seniors.
  I was here when we passed the Medicare Program. We failed to pass it 
in 1964; we passed it in 1965. The Medicaid Program was passed 8 or 10 
months later and both of them were implemented within 11 months--when 
we did not have computers, and it was done without a hitch. Now the 
administration has said 2 to 2\1/2\ years to implement this program, 
with all the computers in the world, and the seniors in my State are 
confused, troubled, and scared.
  The proposal Senator Nelson has offered is to try and relieve that 
anxiety, that fear, the sense of loss that so many of our seniors have.
  If I can get the attention of the Presiding Officer, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further 
consideration of H 1841; that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, 
and that any statements related to the bill be placed in the Record at 
the appropriate place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
does have the attention of the Chair, and on behalf of the Republican 
leadership, I object.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this was an attempt to try, on this last 
day, to give one last opportunity for the Senate to address this issue 
in the form of the Nelson amendment. I regret very much we have an 
objection to it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized.


         The Necessity of the Senate in the Federal Government

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  In my continuing series of statements on the idea of a Senate, I 
refer today to the necessity of the Senate in the Federal Government by 
James Madison in the Federalist 62, 1787.
  Was the Senate really necessary? Was a Senate really necessary? Since 
the American Revolution, the United States had operated under a single 
body legislature, but the Framers of the Constitution created both a 
Senate and a House of Representatives.
  Writing in the Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 letters, written 
to newspapers in support of the Constitution's ratification, James 
Madison explained the unique nature of the Senate and the cautious 
deliberative role that it would play in the American Government.

       Federalist 62:
       The qualifications proposed for senators, as distinguished 
     from those of representatives, consists in a more advanced 
     age and a longer period of citizenship. . . . The propriety 
     of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the 
     senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of 
     information and stability of character, requires at the same 
     time, that the senator should have reached a period of life 
     most likely to supply these advantages . . .
       It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of 
     senators by the State legislatures. . . . It is recommended 
     by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and 
     of giving to the State governments such an agency in the 
     formation of the federal government. . . .
       The equality of representation in the Senate is another 
     point, which, being evidently the result of compromise 
     between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small 
     States, does not call for much discussion. . . .
       In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote 
     allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition 
     of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual 
     States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary 
     sovereignty. . . .
       Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the 
     constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it 
     must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or 
     resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, 
     of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the 
     States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check 
     on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as 
     beneficial; and that the peculiar defence which it involves 
     in favour of the smaller States would be more rational, if 
     any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the 
     other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. 
     But as the larger States will always be able, by their power 
     over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this 
     prerogative of the lesser States; and as the facility and 
     excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our 
     governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this 
     part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice, 
     than it appears to many in contemplation. . . .
       . . . The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by 
     the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to 
     yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to 
     be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and 
     pernicious resolutions. . . . All that need be remarked is, 
     that a body which is to correct this infirmity, ought itself 
     to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less 
     numerous. It ought moreover to possess great firmness, and 
     consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of 
     considerable duration. . . .
       . . . The mutability in the public councils, arising from a 
     rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may 
     be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of 
     some stable institution in the government.

  On September 17, 1787, the 39 delegates to the Constitutional 
Convention, meeting in Philadelphia, signed the new Federal 
Constitution. They agreed that the new Constitution, intended to 
replace the Articles of Confederation, would take effect when it gained 
ratification by 9 of the 13 States.
  To overcome suspicion and outright opposition, supporters of the 
Constitution needed to convince Americans of the wisdom of the new 
plan. In the weeks and months that followed, newspapers throughout the 
States printed opinion pieces that both praised and condemned the 
proposed Federal structure. Most prominent among these propaganda 
pieces was a series of letters written by Alexander Hamilton, James 
Madison, and John Jay. Signed ``Publius,'' and published in 1788 as 
``The Federalist,'' these essays explained how the new Constitution--
dividing the Government into three equal branches--would preserve the 
Union, reconcile differences among States and political factions, and 
promote a common welfare, while carefully controlling power through a 
system of checks and balances.
  Of the 85 essays the trio authored, seven dealt specifically with the 
Senate--Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, and 76--while others, such as 
essay No. 51, discussed the Senate as part of the broader definition of 
a Federal Government that included a bicameral legislature.
  In essay No. 62, James Madison eloquently stated the need for a 
smaller, more deliberative body in the legislative branch to cool the 
passions and control the urges of democratic masses. By requiring 
Senators to be at least 30 years old, 5 years greater than the minimum 
age for their House counterparts, and to be elected by State 
legislatures rather than through direct popular election, the Framers 
created an institution designed to provide experience and stability.
  Such qualifications would be vital in a body to which the 
Constitution assigned such constitutional duties as providing advice 
and consent to treaties and to Presidential appointments. Senators also 
would serve 6-year, overlapping terms, creating continuity by allowing 
two-thirds of its Members to remain from Congress to Congress.

[[Page 8161]]

Longer terms, combined with a system of indirect election, would allow 
Senators to resist the whims of public opinion.
  The Framers also established equality of States in the Senate, 
assigning each State two Senators. The ``Great Compromise of 1787,'' 
reached on July 16, 1787, reconciled the demands of the large States 
with those of the small States by establishing proportional 
representation of States in the House of Representatives based on 
population, and equal representation in the Senate. This compromise 
guaranteed that the Senate would remain a smaller body than the House, 
where Members could enjoy more freedom in debate and create the 
necessary compromises to bring about successful legislation.
  Of all the qualities established by the Framers, only the system of 
indirect election has changed significantly over time. Election by 
State legislatures ultimately proved vulnerable to corruption. 
Following the Civil War, newspaper reporters accused State legislatures 
of accepting bribes to elect Senators favorable to special interests or 
remaining willfully ``deadlocked,'' depriving some States of their 
Senate representation for months--yes, for months--even years.
  Reformers reacted to these allegations by advocating a constitutional 
amendment that would allow the people to vote directly for Senators. 
This correction to the Framers' handiwork for the Senate went into 
effect in 1913 as the 17th amendment.
  The Senate has remained a smaller body where States have an equal 
voice. It has served continuously now--continuously, may I say to the 
distinguished occupant of the Chair, the very able senior Senator from 
the Old Dominion, the State of Virginia--since 1789, never requiring 
the biennial reorganization necessary in the House.
  Senators have tended to be somewhat older and more experienced than 
Representatives, and the Senate has remained--yes, remained--a 
deliberative institution that has brought caution and stability to the 
legislative process.
  As James Madison commented at the Constitutional Convention, the 
``use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, 
with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch'' of 
the Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is we are on the 
immigration bill as of this afternoon, and there is an amendment now 
pending. I wish to say a few words about the general issue of 
immigration and also talk about a couple of items the Democratic 
leader, Senator Reid, spoke about earlier today.
  First of all, I think this needs to be, and I hope will be, a very 
sensitive debate. The fact is, this is a great country in which we 
live. It is a country that in many ways over many decades of its two-
plus centuries has been built by immigrants, has been nourished by 
immigrants. Virtually every one of us in this Chamber would have come 
from immigrant parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents. So it is 
important we understand that and we understand what immigrants have 
brought to and have given this country.
  It is also important that we understand why as a country we have 
decided to have immigration laws and to have quotas for immigration. 
The reason we have had quotas for immigration is the world has 
progressed in different parts of this globe at a very different rate. 
In some countries, the economies have lagged far behind. In other 
countries, the economies have become very advanced, and the 
circumstances of the countries are very different.
  This Earth of ours has somewhere around 6.3 billion people living on 
it, this little planet. We circle around the Sun. Of the 6.3 billion 
people, somewhere now nearing 300 million people live in this little 
place called the United States of America.
  We are pleased to live on this planet. One-half of the people who 
live on this planet make less than $2 a day, one-half of the people who 
live on this Earth have never made a telephone call, and 1.5 billion 
people living on this Earth don't have daily access to clean, potable 
water. There are people living on this Earth with great challenges.
  We, however, are a country that has been blessed with resources, 
wonderful people, and ingenuity, and we have built something very 
special. Building it was not easy. Building the kind of economy and the 
standard of living we have had in this country has required sacrifice. 
We have had people die on the streets for the right of workers to 
organize. We have had very substantial debates about rights--about 
civil rights, workers' rights, about women's rights. We have done a lot 
of things that are very tough and challenging, and we have built quite 
a remarkable country.
  Because of that, this is a country to which many around the world 
aspire to come, to live here, to work here, to be here. If tomorrow, 
for example, we in the United States said, on Tuesday, tomorrow, May 
16, there is a new policy, and that new policy is this: Anyone living 
on this planet is able to come to this country unrestricted, come here, 
stay here, live here, work here, you are welcome, the welcome mat is 
out, if we did that, what do we think might happen? I know what would 
happen. Tens of millions of people--tens and tens and tens of millions 
of people--would aspire to find their way to the United States of 
America because it is, in fact, a beacon of hope and opportunity all 
around the world. There are jobs in this country, jobs available, rates 
of pay that are far in excess of those of Third World countries. The 
difference between, for example, the jobs in Mexico and the rate of pay 
for those jobs versus the jobs in the United States is very 
substantial.
  We have on our southern border people who aspire to come to this 
country from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, on up through Mexico to 
try to cross our borders. The result is we have, in order to protect 
our way of life and our standard of living and to protect jobs that 
need to go to American workers, quotas that limit the amount of 
immigration, and those quotas year by year are quotas we work with to 
try to understand how many we can have come into this country from 
various parts of the world.
  Let me give some statistics about last year to the extent we know it. 
Last year, 1.1 million people tried to come into this country illegally 
from the border of Mexico, up through that southern border; 1.1 million 
people tried to enter this country illegally and were apprehended, 
stopped, and not allowed to enter the United States illegally. Mr. 
President, 750,000, it is estimated, did come to that border and got 
across the border illegally and were not detected and were not stopped. 
So 1.1 million were detected, stopped, and prevented from entering. 
Probably three-quarters of a million entered illegally. Another 
175,000, it is estimated, came to that border and entered legally; that 
is, children, relatives, and others. Under the quota system, they 
entered legally. This is a circumstance just on our southern border.
  The result is we have immigration laws, and those laws are laws that 
determine how many we can allow into this country. We do that for the 
protection and for the economic interests of the American people.
  The American people include immigrants who have been here, came here 
legally; some have been here a long time. We want to make sure that 
jobs are available for them, that the middle class in this country has 
jobs that pay well with benefits.
  We also have another influence in this country, and the other 
influence is that larger corporations are now made much larger because 
of mergers and are wanting to export good American jobs to China and 
import cheap, substandard labor, particularly from the

[[Page 8162]]

South, and pay even less than minimum wage, and because they are hiring 
someone illegal, they are highly unlikely to be critical of them if 
they don't pay the minimum wage. They feel they don't have the right to 
criticize.
  We have a circumstance where at least some enterprises in this 
country want to export good American jobs and import cheap labor on the 
bottom. That is, in my judgment, the circumstance that will pull apart 
the middle class in our country. That is why we have to be concerned 
about all that is happening.
  The situation which exists in this country is that we put together, 
recognizing there was an immigration problem, a bill 20 years ago in 
the Congress--I wasn't serving in the Senate at the time, I was in the 
House. It was a bill called Simpson-Mazzoli. It was named after Senator 
Simpson and Congressman Mazzoli. It was said at the time that the way 
to deal with illegal immigration is to shut off the jobs because people 
aspire to come here illegally to take a job. They see this job as hope 
and promise for the future.
  I have pointed out many times about a helicopter I was on that ran 
out of gas at one point. We were touring down near Honduras and 
Nicaragua in the jungle and mountainous area. I was on a helicopter, 
and we ran out of fuel. We landed under power, but the red lights were 
on and alarms were ringing, and the pilots brought us down right then 
and there in this jungle, mountainous area. We were there a good many 
hours until the U.S. Army found out where we were and hauled us out of 
there.
  The campasinos in the area came walking through the underbrush to see 
who landed in these two helicopters. Three of us had an interpreter 
with us. I was talking to the campasinos through the interpreter. They 
had never seen anyone from the United States. They lived up in the 
hills, a life of significant difficulty and poverty.
  I was talking with them about their lives. I asked one young woman: 
How many children do you have?
  She said: Only four, kind of disappointed. She was a very young 
woman. The interpreter told me later: The reason that woman said ``only 
four'' is you should understand there is no social security program 
down here. The only social security you have is to have as many 
children as you can possibly have and hope that enough of them survive 
that perhaps if you are lucky enough to reach old age, you will have 
children alive to support you in your old age. That is social security.
  A number of women with a number of children came looking to see who 
landed. I was talking with, as I said, this young woman: What is your 
wish, your desire for your future and your children's future? What are 
you hoping for?
  She said: That is easy. I want to come to the United States of 
America.
  I said: Why do you want to come to the United States of America?
  Oh, she said, that is an area where there is hope and opportunity for 
my children, and jobs.
  You find that all over. So it is not surprising there are people 
trying to cross our border, trying to find jobs and opportunities in 
this country.
  We passed legislation 20 years ago called Simpson-Mazzoli. The basic 
premise of that legislation was very simple. The premise was this: The 
attraction for people to come to this country illegally is to find a 
job and to earn money. If you shut off that attraction, shut off that 
job, you at least substantially diminish illegal immigration coming 
into this country. And so the legislation was passed.
  I went back recently and read all the debate about Simpson-Mazzoli. 
The legislation was passed, and it was going to shut off the jobs. In 
fact, how was that going to happen? It was going to happen because 
there were going to be employer sanctions, saying to America's 
employers: If you hire illegal aliens, if you hire illegal immigrants 
to come into this country to take a job, you are going to be in some 
trouble. You can't hire people who are here illegally to work in your 
plants, to work in your businesses.
  Those then were the approaches that were going to be used to shut 
down this illegal immigration. What happened? Let me give an example. I 
am told that last year, there was only one action taken against an 
American business--one--in all of America for hiring illegal workers.
  I will give an example of hiring illegal workers. A couple of weeks 
ago--there is an energy plant being built in North Dakota--the highway 
patrol picked up I believe it was seven people. I believe six were from 
Guatemala, one was from Mexico. They detained them. They were not here 
legally. They had come here illegally to take a job in constructing the 
energy plant.
  The law enforcement people took them to Minot, ND, to the immigration 
office. As a result of that, they took them back down to a motel nearly 
an hour south of Minot and dropped them off at the motel where they 
were staying with the admonition that they are now required, because 
they were here illegally, to show up in Minneapolis some weeks hence 
for a hearing. Of course, they will never show up in Minneapolis. They 
are gone. That is the way the system works: Come here, find a job; if 
you get caught, they say show up later; you never show up later. And 
that is the way the system works. That is the way the system works.
  Now, what about the employer who hired these seven people? In 2004, 
in the entire United States of America, the administration took action 
against three companies that hired illegal immigrants. Let me say that 
again. In the entire country, they took action against only three 
companies that hired illegal immigrants. That is the same as saying to 
companies: You know what, don't worry, be happy. Hire illegal workers 
if you wish. Pay them substandard wages if you wish because they won't 
complain because they are illegal. Don't worry about it. It is a great 
way of cutting your costs. Be our guests because we are not going to 
enforce the law.
  That is unbelievable to me.
  So the whole promise of the law that was changed 20 years ago to shut 
off these jobs for people who are not in our country legally was a 
complete failure because there was an abject lack of enforcement. Now 
we have a piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate dealing with 
immigration, and we are going to go through this process again. We are 
told there are 11 million to 12 million people who have come into our 
country illegally. Some have come in recent years, some have been here 
a long while, and some have been here long enough to have children and 
grandchildren. So the question is: What do you do about that?
  Then we have people come to the floor of the Senate and they say: 
Well, let's do a new immigration bill. Yet doing a new immigration bill 
without effectively finding ways to shut the border to illegal 
immigration will have us back in the same Chamber in 10 years or 20 
years saying: Now what do we do about the next 10 million or 20 million 
people who are here illegally?
  Let me tell you why I think this is so important. No. 1, I said when 
I started that I think it is important that this be dealt with in a 
very sensitive way. I don't want people to in any way suggest that this 
debate diminishes or demeans immigrants. We have some wonderful people 
who have come to this country. That is how I got to this country. I 
wasn't alive when my ancestors came here, but they came over from 
Norway, and most Members of this Senate are here in this country 
because someone had the courage to get on a boat and probably land at 
Ellis Island. So let's understand that, first of all, about 
immigration.
  But let's also understand that the issue of legal and illegal 
immigration is different. There are legal ways to come to this country 
and there are ways to get into this country illegally. What we have 
built in this country is very unusual on the face of the Earth.
  I have spoken before about a man named Jim Fyler. Jim Fyler died. He 
was shot 54 times--54 times he was shot. Do you know why he was shot? 
Because he felt that coal miners ought to have a right to organize for 
better pay and better work hours, so he gave his life. Well, Mr. Fyler 
is one example of dozens of examples of what we have done in this 
country: The courage of men and women to stand up for the interests of 
workers for good jobs that

[[Page 8163]]

pay well, with benefits, including retirement, health care, and more. 
So we have built something very special.
  Now we have a whole series of influences which include, yes, illegal 
immigration to diminished salaries, diminished wages, diminished 
benefits, and diminished opportunities for American workers. It is not 
right.
  So what I feel we should do is work on this immigration system in a 
serious and thoughtful way and try to evaluate what do we do about 
several issues. First, what do we do to control our border? I know some 
of the discussions today and perhaps this week and next week will be 
about terrorists. Yes, we have to try to keep terrorists from coming 
across the border. That is something that is very important. Terrorists 
wish to do harm to the American people. We need to keep terrorists from 
coming across this border and trying to kill American citizens. But in 
addition to the issue of detecting terrorists and preventing them from 
coming in, we also need to have some control of our border to prevent 
an uncontrolled inflow of illegal immigrants who will take American 
jobs at substandard wages and then beginning to put downward pressure 
on American workers and American wages.
  It is not an accident what is happening in this country today. You 
can read all the newspapers and evaluate what you find. You find 
companies that want to ship good jobs overseas to China. Why? Because 
they pay less money to get their products produced, and they want to 
ship their product back to this country to sell it and then they want 
to run their income through the Grand Cayman Islands and not pay taxes. 
So the same companies that want to export good Americans jobs are the 
same companies that would like to import cheap wages for the jobs we 
lost here.
  Alan Blinder, a very respected economist, used to be vice chairman of 
the Federal Reserve Board. He wrote a piece that is interesting. I know 
some, when they talk about exporting American jobs, are viewed as 
xenophobes and isolationists and protectionist.
  Allen Blinder wrote a piece; he is a former vice chair of the Fed, a 
very respected economist. He said there are somewhere between 42 
million and 54 million American jobs that are potential jobs to be 
outsourced--out-
sourced--because there is a billion to a billion and a half workers in 
the rest of the world who will do those jobs for 30 cents an hour, 50 
cents an hour, and you can put them in unsafe work plants, put the 
chemicals in the air and water. You don't have to worry about all that. 
They are much less expensive than hiring an American worker. He also 
said that it is likely that 42 million to 54 million American jobs 
would not be exported, but even those that are not exported, if they 
remain here, they are competing with lower wages and with those workers 
overseas who are willing to accept much lower wages.
  So we face some very significant economic pressures for the American 
worker and the middle class in this country. Nobody seems to think much 
about it, care much about it or talk much about it. But it is implicit 
in this discussion as well, and it applies not to a certain class of 
American workers; it applies to all American workers. Yes, those are 
Hispanic workers and African-American workers; all American workers are 
affected by this. Those who are in the minority suffer most. They are 
the first to lose their jobs and the last to get a job back, and when 
they do get a job back, it is lower pay because they are told: This is 
a new global economy, and you have to compete with others in other 
parts of the world willing to work for much less money.
  So that is the subtext as well for this kind of discussion, but I 
want to finally say this: If this debate moves forward without an 
understanding that you have to find a way to deal with this issue of 
employer sanctions or shut off the lure, shut down the lure of a job; 
if we don't decide to get serious about saying to employers: You can't 
hire illegal immigrants, you can't do that without significant 
sanctions; if we don't do that, then we should make reservations to 
come back every 10 years and have another debate about how we deal with 
the next 5 million or 10 million people who want to come into this 
country.
  So I think that this issue in the coming couple of days is going to 
be a difficult issue with perhaps a lot of amendments. I will be 
offering an amendment. My amendment will be one that will eliminate the 
guest worker provision which is the extra ``above'' provision saying 
that there are another--with this new proposal before us, there is 
another, I think it is 3.8 million workers who don't yet live in this 
country, but above H-2A and H-2B and the other programs, above all of 
that, there is another 3.8 million workers living outside the country 
now that will be allowed in as a part of this compromise. It doesn't 
make any sense to me. That is not, in my judgment, the right thing to 
do.
  So there will be, as I said, a lot of amendments and a difficult 
debate, I am sure. I think this is a very important issue, but I think 
it is very important that we do it right and get it right. One of the 
questions we ought to consider for all Americans as we proceed is what 
are the consequences on American workers, on American jobs, wages, 
retirement, the future? That is a very important issue as we consider 
these immigration issues in the next 2 weeks.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and make a point of order that the 
quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague from 
North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for his comments. I happened to be in 
South America a few weeks ago, and I noticed in the State Department 
news clips that there was a poll taken in Nicaragua, and it said that 
60 percent of the people of Nicaragua would move to the United States 
if they could. Then I asked the Ambassador of Peru about it, and he 
said: Well, that is interesting. We did a poll down here just a couple 
of months ago and it was 70 percent. So I think Senator Dorgan has 
raised an important point, and that point is this: The United States 
must decide how many people and what skill sets we need in our country 
to strengthen our country. We simply cannot allow everybody in the 
world to individually decide they would like to come here and then to 
grant that request. It simply is not possible. I think what we would 
see in the months to come and the years to come is that more and more 
people would choose to come here, and as word got out if this bill were 
to pass in its present form, that they would decide to come here. The 
numbers could grow to exceed a level that most people think not 
possible today.
  I had a press conference this morning, and we dealt with the question 
of the numbers of people that would be allowed into our country if this 
legislation were to pass. The numbers are staggering. Also at that 
press conference was Mr. Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the 
Heritage Foundation, the man who did the basic research on the welfare 
reform bill, one of the more respected individuals in Washington in 
terms of numbers and public policy. He stated at that press conference 
that this legislation is some of the most important legislation ever to 
come before Congress, and he compared it as rivaling in significance to 
Social Security and Medicare. That is what he said this morning. So we 
have to think seriously about the legislation that is before us.
  Yes, we want to treat fairly and justly those people already in the 
country--even those who are here illegally--and figure out a way to do 
that right, and that is very significant. We also want to work hard on 
the border and to make sure we have a legal system that works in this 
country, and we have been doing some work on that. I

[[Page 8164]]

don't think we are there yet. This bill does not get us there, but we 
can talk about it and perhaps make some progress.
  I would say there is a deeper issue that is part of S. 2611 that has 
not been discussed publicly until this morning, and that is how many 
people might be admitted under this bill. My staff, Cindy Hayden and 
her Judiciary team, have been working for a week to try to figure out 
just how many people could be admitted. Right now, under current law, 
this country would admit 19 million new residents over 20 years. Under 
the legislation that is proposed today, over a 20 year period, we would 
admit a minimum of 78 million people--four times the number admitted 
under current law. In fact, as this chart shows, the number of people 
we admit could be as high as 217 people. If the base numbers in this 
bill grew at the maximum acceleration factors automatically built into 
the bill, acceleration factors that kick in not with regard to Congress 
or with regard to the Department of Labor making any certification of 
need but simply because people show up and apply to come into our 
country, they could actually hit 217 million people. That is a stunning 
number. That is two-thirds of the present population of the United 
States of America. I don't think it is going to hit 217 million, but I 
do think it is going to exceed 78 million.
  Mr. Rector ran his numbers, and they came out very similar to ours. 
His top number for people admitted over 20 years was 200 million 
instead of 217 million. Based on his judgment about what might actually 
happen, he thinks that the number will be 103 million people over 20 
years, five times the current rate of immigration into our country 
today. Based on this finding, that would mean that 20 years from today, 
25 percent of the people in this country will not be native born 
citizens. That is a huge thing. What does that mean to jobs and 
employment and wages? We haven't thought that through. What have we 
done to make sure that the people who come here are welcomed and can be 
met, affirmed and raised in the traditions of America which have 
created the land of opportunity that attracts people here?
  What about those people who came into our country legally or those 
who may be given amnesty under this bill? They are out working at a 
little above minimum wage and then, boom, every year, larger and larger 
numbers of people come in, keeping them down at the minimum wage level, 
not allowing them to build up their salaries. Those are all problems 
that we have not thought through in a significant way, but they are big 
problems. These are huge problems. But there is momentum to pass 
something. What we hear in the Senate is we need to pass something, to 
send some sort of signal, I guess, politically or otherwise, that we 
care. We have to do this.
  We need to think. This Senate is supposed to carefully and 
thoughtfully consider legislation before we pass it. I am going to talk 
a good bit about it as time goes on throughout this debate. There are 
so many important things contained in the legislation, so much 
experiment, unthought-out policies that could be detrimental to our 
future, that we must discuss them in an effective way.
  I guess it was about 3 weeks ago when the bill was previously on the 
floor and they tried to ram this thing through here. The Democratic 
leader would not even allow an amendment and they almost passed it. 
Some of us had to battle and push back. Senator Frist, the majority 
leader, finally said we can't operate under this procedure. We are not 
going to deny our Members the right to have an amendment in the Senate 
on a piece of legislation that may be as important as Medicare and 
Social Security. For heaven's sake, that was the scheme of things.
  Now we are supposed to move a 600 page piece of legislation through 
here, with an agreement that only 20 amendments are guaranteed to get a 
vote, and then we will pass the bill at the end of the week. I don't 
think we can really fix it by the end of this week, frankly. I don't 
think there is enough knowledge in the Senate about what is in the 
legislation to make it possible for us to reach an agreement on how to 
fix this.
  When we had this issue blowup recently--I guess that is the word you 
would call it--and they tried to move this through and Senator Reid 
said we would not have any amendments and it was pulled down, I raised 
the point at that time that we did not fully comprehend the importance 
of what is in it. We need to study the bill. We need to study the 
policy behind the bill. Around the country, I called for hearings in 
the Judiciary Committee, a national discussion on what would be the 
appropriate way to handle the people who are here illegally.
  We are going to handle them in a nice and fair and generous way. What 
about the people who want to come in the future? What are we going to 
do about them? We can discuss that. Trust me, that is much larger in 
this piece of legislation. The people who are allowed under this bill 
to come here in the future dwarf the 11 million who are here now. We 
need to have a national dialog, but we have not had it.
  We ended up having one hearing, about 2 hours long, maybe a little 
more. I think three or four Senators came in and out during the 
hearing. I was there. We had five economists. They made some important 
points, although not in depth because of the shortage of time. They 
noted that the bill as written emphasizes low-skilled workers, and all 
of them agreed that a low-skilled worker--over half of those now coming 
in do not have a high school education--cost the economy more than they 
bring in. All the economists agreed on that. A low-skill worker is not 
a net benefit for America at this point.
  They questioned chain migration. They suggested we should question 
more about the skill sets of people who want to come here. They 
discussed the fact that there is strong evidence that workers' wages, 
middle-class and low-end-skill wages today are depressed by larger 
numbers of immigrants who come in who are willing to work for less.
  Why would we think the law of supply and demand worked for every 
other component of our American economy but doesn't work for labor? How 
silly is that? Those are some of the things we discussed in the one 
hearing we had in the Judiciary Committee.
  Friday, I came down to the Senate floor. I made a speech just this 
past Friday, detailing 15 loopholes in the base bill. Each of those 
loopholes is very significant and raises important questions we need to 
address. I will point out briefly what some of those are.
  Under the bill on the floor today, illegal aliens with felonies or 
three misdemeanors can get amnesty. That is not what the American 
people want or what we should want.
  Illegal aliens who have previously filed fraudulent asylum 
applications, prohibited by law from getting amnesty or citizenship 
today, can get amnesty and are put on a path to citizenship.
  There is no continuous work requirement. They say the people are here 
to work, but the bill doesn't require continuous work in any 
significant way.
  They allow evidence that can be produced to prove you have been in 
the country or been working that is very dubious and will clearly lead 
to fraud. The bill says you must accept just and reasonable inferences 
as evidence and that you can have documents from day labor centers and 
that an alien can file his or her ``sworn declaration,'' and they must 
be accepted as evidence that the alien satisfies the work requirement.
  I pointed out that the bill is fundamentally unfair because it 
benefits only those who broke the law and not those who followed it and 
got their work visas to come to the United States or those who left the 
country when their visa expired as they were supposed to.
  Another loophole was that the annual numerical cap is not a cap at 
all. If it is met each year, it automatically goes up 20 percent 
without any thought going into that, or discussion.

[[Page 8165]]

  Furthermore, in-state tuition will be made available to illegal 
aliens, reversing carefully considered and fully debated law that we 
passed a number of years ago in the Congress.
  These are mostly enforcement loopholes. They deal with amnesty 
provisions and the enforcement provisions of the bill. They are part of 
this 614-page bill. But until today, no one has discussed publicly what 
S. 2611 would do about future immigration or how significant that could 
be. So we will be discussing that during the course of this debate. I 
am going to talk about it. I will not be able to complete those remarks 
tonight, but we will be talking about it the rest of the week, and I 
think we will see a national discussion begin as a result of the 
efforts of my staff, and that of the Heritage Foundation, 
independently, to conclude what the numbers will be.
  Who and how many people will be admitted on the path to citizenship 
under this bill? I think we in the Senate, unfortunately, are 
blissfully ignorant of the scope and impact of the legislation.
  I think most Members of the Senate still believe that the bill 
language that says ``guest workers'' is language that means temporary 
workers when the truth is that virtually all those who will qualify in 
the future under this bill are not temporary in any way but will be 
able to stay permanently in this country and will be placed on a direct 
path to citizenship. That is a fact.
  On April 19, when we were trying to decide how to handle all these 
monumental issues, I wrote to the Judiciary Committee and asked to have 
hearings on the full impact of this bill which is now before the 
Senate. I asked a number of questions--see if you don't think these are 
fair questions to ask about a piece of legislation of this 
significance.
  I asked: What is the estimated numerical impact of each of the 
proposed immigration programs? Wouldn't you like to know that? What is 
the numerical impact? How many will come in?
  No. 2, how does the future chain migration of family members impact 
the total immigration numbers on the proposal? We don't know that 
number. As a matter of fact, in all the numbers we have worked on, we 
have not tried to calculate it.
  Next, what will be the legislation's estimated fiscal impact on the 
Federal budget, as well as State and local governments' budgets? How 
much will it impact the Treasury of the United States, the taxpayers? 
Does anybody know that? The answer is no.
  Next, how will entitlement programs such as Medicaid, TANF--welfare--
and food stamps be affected? Do we need to know that? Sure.
  What level of immigration in the future is in our best national, 
economic, social, and cultural interests? What is the interest of the 
United States? What do we need as a country? What would be good for us?
  We believe in immigration, we want immigration to continue. I think 
we might even probably agree that we should increase the number of 
people who come legally into our country. But what level is correct? 
Have we discussed that? Have you heard any debate about that?
  I next asked what categories of immigrants should compose the overall 
level of annual immigration. What categories? So I said we need to have 
a national discussion.
  We had one hearing. We had a group of professors for about 2 hours to 
discuss the general economic principles relating to immigration. It 
just was not satisfactory. We did not examine in any way the specific 
provisions of this 600-page piece of legislation.
  I sent another letter on April 28 asking our Judiciary Committee to 
hold five hearings and focus comprehensively on the effects of the 
proposed legislation. That did not occur. There have never been any 
hearings on the specifics of this bill. Therefore, as we have gone 
through it, my staff and I, trying to figure out the numerical impacts 
of the bill, we came up with some significant numbers. I will not go 
into the full detail of that tonight. I will talk more about it 
tomorrow.
  I will point out again that these are the charts which show the 20-
year impact of 2611. These numbers can be calculated based on the 
provisions of the bill, but it takes a lot of time and effort. We have 
charts that go down each provision to calculate what the minimum 
numbers admitted would be and what the maximum numbers admitted would 
be.
  Under this piece of legislation today, if the caps, the upper limits 
on the immigration numbers that automatically go upward if they are 
ever met, don't go up at all and people bring in their families, their 
spouses and children who then become citizens, at a minimum 78.7 
million people would be admitted over 20 years. That is four times the 
18.9 million that the current law allows for today. Who has discussed 
the impact of that? And absolutely it is going to be more, in my view, 
than 78.7 million, for any number of reasons I will discuss.
  In fact, if all the top quotas were hit, that number would hit 217 
million, according to our calculations. The Heritage Foundation 
calculated the number to be about 200 million, I believe. Though that 
is the top number, Mr. Rector says a careful, conservative analysis of 
the legislation would lead him to believe that over 100 million people 
would actually come into America on a path to citizenship in 20 years. 
That is his best judgment. If somebody doesn't agree, I would like hear 
about it. One hundred million is five times the number that now can 
come into our country. It has not been discussed until today. Nobody 
has really discussed it but us today, that I know of. It is time to 
talk about that, wouldn't you think? Did anybody even know this was in 
the legislation? They would have passed this bill without an amendment 
just a few weeks ago. That was the plan around here, to move it on to 
conference. They say: Let's just get it out of here. Don't worry about 
what is in it, Sessions. Don't bother to read it, it is 614 pages. You 
know you will find something you don't like. That is kind of the talk 
going on around here.
  We decided to read it. My staff actually came away stunned by the 
breadth and the size and scope of this legislation.
  We need to talk about it more. I will have a few amendments. I am not 
going to try to file too many amendments. But we will talk about it as 
time goes.
  I urge my colleagues to not say to yourself: Well, we need to pass 
something or I think I will vote for this bill, and maybe they will fix 
it in conference.
  This is a piece of legislation that is extremely important to the 
people of this country of the United States. It is extremely important 
for our future as a Nation.
  Mr. Rector said it is a matter of huge importance to our Nation.
  We need to think about it.
  If it is not the piece of legislation you thought it was, if it 
provides amnesty when they said it didn't, if you thought the workers 
were temporary and guest workers when they are permanent and on the 
route to citizenship, and you had no idea the number was going to be 
100 million new people in the country permanently on the path to 
citizenship, five times the current number, then I ask you to vote no.
  Let us back up here. Let us fix this bill or let us not pass this 
bill.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

                          ____________________