[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8791-8801]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2611, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Ensign/Graham modified amendment No. 4076, to authorize the 
     use of the National Guard to secure the southern border of 
     the United States.
       Chambliss/Isakson amendment No. 4009, to modify the wage 
     requirements for employers seeking to hire H-2A and blue card 
     agricultural workers.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the majority leader and the 
Democratic leader are still in the Chamber, I wish to express my 
gratitude to each of them, as well as the managers of the comprehensive 
immigration reform bill that is in the Chamber and that we have been 
debating this week, for the progress we have made. I think it has been 
in the greatest traditions of the Senate that we have taken a 
controversial subject where debate that has been long overdue and we 
have had an open and honest and vigorous debate on many important 
amendments that have helped improve the bill, from my perspective. But 
this is the Senate at its best. While we know we will not always agree 
with one another, there is one place on the face of the planet where we 
have the freedom, we have the opportunity to have debates and try to 
build consensus.
  I know there are some--and I was just on a talk show moments before I 
came to the floor, and the person hosting that had expressed some 
frustration about what has been going on here, and I encouraged him to 
think of this according to the old adage that watching legislation 
being made is somehow like watching sausage being made.
  Parenthetically, I note sometimes that we maybe give sausage-making a 
bad name, but in all sincerity the important thing is that we are 
having the debate, we are having votes, and majorities are ruling. I do 
not necessarily always like the outcome of those votes. Sometimes I do. 
But the fact is that we are having votes and we are letting the process 
move forward. Hopefully we will have a comprehensive reform bill passed 
by the Senate, a bill we can be proud of and will then be sent to the 
President's desk for consideration and possible signature. My hope is 
we will continue to have this process move forward and have an 
opportunity to call up additional amendments.
  I wanted to speak briefly about an amendment I intend to offer not 
today but at a later time. I have previously spoken about this issue.
  The compromise bill that is currently in the Chamber contains 
language that prohibits information sharing and restricts how the 
Department of Homeland Security may use information submitted in 
applications. The text in the underlying bill is exactly the same as 
that contained in the 1986 amnesty legislation. Twenty years ago now, 
we know from hindsight and experience, those provisions led to hundreds

[[Page 8792]]

of thousands of ineligible aliens receiving green cards. The amendment 
I intend to offer does not eliminate the confidentiality provisions. It 
does, however, state that once an individual's application is denied, 
there is no longer a need for confidentiality, and that information may 
be shared with law enforcement personnel, that may be necessary to 
investigate fraud and bring others to justice.
  The underlying bill says that information furnished by an applicant 
can only be used to make a determination on that specific application. 
The information may also be used in connection with a criminal 
investigation or prosecution. But if the Department of Homeland 
Security identifies a pattern of fraud, it would be prohibited from 
using that information in one fraudulent application to deny another 
application that was submitted as part of a criminal conspiracy. The 
same restrictions were included in the 1986 legislation program, and 
that caused widespread fraud and abuse. There is no reason to treat 
legalization applications any differently from any other immigration 
application submitted to the Department of Homeland Security.
  The New York Times described the 1986 agricultural worker amnesty as 
``One of the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated against 
the United States Government.'' Although the estimated size of the 
illegal alien population engaged in agricultural work in the 1980s was 
only about 300,000 to 400,000 out of a total agricultural workforce of 
2.5 million, 1.3 million aliens were amnestied under the program.
  Let me make sure that is clear. Although the estimated size of the 
illegal alien population engaged in agricultural work in the 1980s was 
only 300,000 to 400,000, 1.3 million aliens were amnestied under that 
program.
  The confidentiality provisions of the 1986 act were credited with 
causing the widespread fraud and abuse. In 1999, the General Counsel 
during the Clinton administration testified before the House that ``the 
confidentiality restrictions of the law in the 1986 amnesty also 
prevented the Immigration and Naturalization Service from pursuing 
cases of possible fraud detected during the application process.''
  In 1995, a man by the name of Jose Velez, the ex-president of LULAC, 
was found guilty of immigration fraud after he filed fraudulent 
applications under the 1986 amnesty. The task force that brought down 
that particular conspiracy resulted in guilty pleas or convictions of 
20 individuals who together were responsible for filing false 
legalization applications for in excess of an estimated 11,000 
unqualified aliens. In other words, 20 people pled guilty to falsified 
legalization applications for in excess of 11,000 unqualified aliens.
  Between March of 1988 and January 1991, Velez and his coconspirators 
submitted approximately 3,000 fraudulent applications. In connection 
with the 1986 legalization program, there were 920 arrests, 822 
indictments, 513 convictions for fraud and related criminal activity.
  (Mr. Isakson assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. CORNYN. This is not about history. This is about what is also 
happening even today. I am reminded of the report of the 9/11 
Commission and the studies and investigations we conducted after 9/11 
which indicated a consensus that we had to bring down some of the 
stovepipes that prohibited information sharing in our intelligence 
community. Essentially this amendment is designed to bring down the 
stovepipes that have prohibited the Department of Homeland Security 
from sharing information that would lead to discovery of evidence of 
massive fraud in our immigration system. I hope that when the amendment 
is called up, when we have a chance to vote on it, my colleagues will 
support it.
  But again, this is not just about history. This is about what is 
happening today. I have in front of me a news release dated May 19, 
2006, from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency entitled 
``Six People Indicted in Multi-State Amnesty Fraud Conspiracy.''
  This is out of Atlanta, GA, which may be of particular interest to 
the Presiding Officer. Several individuals--it looks like six 
individuals were indicted by a Federal grand jury on May 9, 2006, on 
charges of conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to reside 
unlawfully in the United States and to make false statements in 
applications presented to the Department of Homeland Security. They 
were charged in separate counts for making false statements in 
applications presented to the Department of Homeland Security, and also 
there were two counts of money laundering.
  The U.S. attorney in charge described this conspiracy in these words:

       The six individuals indicted in this conspiracy were 
     involved in a multi-state scheme to solicit immigrants who 
     were illegally present in the United States to file 
     fraudulent applications for amnesty with the Department of 
     Homeland Security. The defendants, as part of a money making 
     scheme, allegedly assisted immigrants who did not meet 
     legitimate amnesty program requirements to file applications 
     containing false statements. This office--

  The Office of the U.S. Attorney--

     is committed to vigorous investigation and prosecution of 
     schemes such as this one as part of the President's 
     initiative to strengthen enforcement of our Nation's 
     immigration laws.

  The U.S. attorney goes on to say:

       Not only did these individuals seek to exploit our legal 
     immigration system for personal financial gain, they used 
     their positions as religious leaders to prey upon the 
     immigrant community.

  That statement was attributed to Ken Smith, special agent in charge 
of the Office of Immigration and Custom Enforcement. That office is 
located in Atlanta. He goes on to say:

       This case highlights the importance of ICE's close 
     partnership with other law enforcement agencies as we seek to 
     dismantle criminal document and benefit fraud networks.

  Mr. President, I will not read the rest of this news release, but I 
will ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks this document 
be made part of the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
  So, Mr. President, we have had a productive week in the Senate 
dealing with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. Each of us 
has perhaps won some and lost some in terms of the amendments we 
favored or disfavored, but I think it has been a good week for the 
Senate, a good week for the cause of securing our borders and restoring 
public respect for our laws. At the same time, as we continue to be a 
nation that does welcome legal immigration, one of the things that I 
will say that I hope we continue to focus on is what in our immigration 
system really is in America's best interest--recognizing that we can't 
simply open our borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come to the 
United States or we would be swamped by a veritable tsunami of 
humanity.
  We should continue to be a welcoming country but one that respects 
not only our heritage as a nation of immigrants but also respects our 
heritage as a nation of laws. Indeed, at this time, we are trying to 
export that heritage as not only the Democratic country that respects 
democracy but one that respects the rule of law in places such as 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and so we need to tend to business here at home.
  But as we continue to debate and discuss and hopefully pass laws that 
are in America's best interest and improve our system, we will look at 
exactly what type of legal immigration we should encourage. I would ask 
my colleagues to not only focus on the massive low-skilled immigration 
that is part of this underlying bill but also focus on those people who 
have special talents and special educational credentials and 
experience, highly skilled individuals whom we ought to encourage to 
come to this country and, if they want to become American citizens, 
provide them an opportunity to do so. When we look at the costs 
associated with the underlying bill, what we have learned is low-
skilled, poorly educated individuals are more likely to be a financial 
burden on the American taxpayer than those who are highly skilled and 
highly educated. Indeed, those highly skilled and highly educated legal 
immigrants whom we ought

[[Page 8793]]

to be encouraging to come to the United States and become part of this 
great country are people who are going to help America to continue to 
be competitive in the global marketplace. That includes, of course, 
foreign students who study at our universities.
  I personally believe that when someone graduates with one of these 
important advance degrees in math, science, engineering, the very sorts 
of skills and talents which will make America competitive, we ought to 
give them preferential treatment when it comes to their application for 
legal permanent residency and putting them in line for American 
citizenship, if that is their wish.
  I hope what is not lost in all of this debate about immigration 
reform is America's great heritage as a nation of immigrants, our 
heritage as a nation that believes in the rule of law. What that means 
to me is we ought to be encouraging legal immigration that is in the 
best interests of this Nation while discouraging and preventing illegal 
immigration by comprehensive border security, interior enforcement, 
worksite verification, and sanctions against employers who cheat, while 
we also create a legal immigration system to deal with the workforce 
needs and our prosperity in America going forward.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                      U.S. Immigration and Customs


                                                  Enforcement,

                                                     May 19, 2006.

      Six People Indicted in Multi-State Amnesty Fraud Conspiracy

       Atlanta, GA.--Emma Gerald, 54, of Kennesaw, Ruy Brasil 
     Silva, 49, of Roswell, Marcos Amador, 19, of Atlanta, Denise 
     Silva, 45, of Roswell, Douglas Ross, 29, of Marietta, and 
     Hudson Araujo, 27, of Brockton, Massachusetts, were indicted 
     by a federal grand jury on May 9, 2006, on charges of 
     conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to reside 
     unlawfully in the United States and to make false statements 
     in applications presented to the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS). Emma Gerald, Ruy Brasil Silva, and Marcos 
     Amador are charged in separate counts for making false 
     statements in applications presented to DHS. Emma Gerald is 
     also charged with two counts of money laundering.
       Ross was arraigned today in Atlanta. Araujo was taken into 
     custody by federal agents in Brockton, Massachusetts, and had 
     his initial appearance in federal court in Boston today. 
     Denise Silva is a fugitive being sought by federal law 
     enforcement authorities. Gerald, Ruy Brasil Silva, and Amador 
     were indicted on related charges on February 14, 2006. Gerald 
     was released on a secured bond and Ruy Brasil Silva and 
     Amador are in custody. Their arraignments on this indictment 
     have not yet been scheduled.
       United States Attorney David E. Nahmias said, ``The six 
     individuals indicted in this conspiracy were involved in a 
     multi-state scheme to solicit immigrants who were illegally 
     present in the United States to file fraudulent applications 
     for amnesty with the Department of Homeland Security. The 
     defendants, as part of a moneymaking scheme, allegedly 
     assisted immigrants who did not meet legitimate amnesty 
     program requirements to file applications containing false 
     statements. This office is committed to vigorous 
     investigation and prosecution of schemes such as this one, as 
     part of the President's initiative to strengthen enforcement 
     of the Nation's immigration laws.''
       ``Not only did these individuals seek to exploit our legal 
     immigration system for personal financial gain, they used 
     their positions as religious leaders to prey upon the 
     immigrant community,'' said Ken Smith, Special Agent-in-
     Charge of ICE's office of Investigations in Atlanta. ``The 
     case highlights the importance of ICE's close partnerships 
     with other law enforcement agencies as we seek to dismantle 
     criminal document and benefit fraud networks.''
       According to United States Attorney Nahmias, the charges 
     and other information presented in court: Emma Gerald, the 
     pastor of a local church, held herself out as a consultant to 
     aliens seeking amnesty in the United States. Gerald did 
     business under the name ``EJ Consulting Services.'' Under a 
     program known as the ``Catholic Social Services/Lulac/Newman 
     Amnesty Program'' (the ``CSS Amnesty Program''), certain 
     aliens who were illegally in the United States were eligible 
     to apply for temporary residence in this country. In order to 
     be eligible, an alien had to meet certain requirements, 
     including having been present in the United States unlawfully 
     from prior to January 1982; and having previously applied for 
     temporary residence but having been turned down because the 
     alien left and re-entered the United States without the 
     permission of the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service (INS).
       Gerald conducted meetings at Marietta churches to solicit 
     aliens, largely Brazilian nationals who were illegally 
     present in the United States, to apply for the CSS Amnesty 
     Program. Ruy Brasil Silva was a pastor of one of the churches 
     and made it available to Gerald for the meetings. Marcos 
     Amador acted as a translator and assistant to Gerald. Gerald 
     advised the Brazilian aliens that the Department of Homeland 
     Security did not have records to establish whether an alien 
     met the CSS Amnesty Program requirements as to length of 
     residence in the United States or previous unsuccessful 
     application for amnesty, so that they could apply even if 
     they did not qualify. Over the course of the scheme, Gerald 
     charged the aliens between $300 per person/$500 per married 
     couple to approximately $600 per person/$1100 per married 
     couple. For an extra fee, Gerald and Amador would provide the 
     aliens with letters falsely stating that they met the program 
     requirements as to length of residence and previous 
     application for amnesty. Douglas Ross, Gerald's son, attended 
     the meetings, assisting Gerald with preparing and collecting 
     applications and collecting money from the aliens.
       Gerald, Ruy Brasil Silva, Amador, Ross, and Denise Silva 
     conducted similar meetings in Florida, collecting money from 
     Brazilian aliens to assist them in filing fraudulent 
     applications. Gerald, Ross, and Hudson Araujo conducted 
     meetings in Brockton, Massachusetts.
       The United States is seeking forfeiture of Gerald's 
     Kennesaw, Georgia home and several vehicles, including 
     Gerald's Mercedes-Benz automobile, on the grounds that they 
     were purchased with proceeds of the criminal scheme or were 
     used to facilitate the criminal activity. The United States 
     is also seeking forfeiture of several bank and investment 
     accounts, on the grounds that criminal proceeds were 
     deposited into the accounts.
       The indictment charges one count of conspiracy against all 
     the defendants, one count of false statement against Gerald 
     and Amador, one count of false statement against Gerald and 
     Ruy Brasil Silva, and two counts of money laundering against 
     Gerald. The conspiracy charge and false statement charges 
     each carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a fine 
     of up to $250,000. The money laundering charges each carry a 
     maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of up to 
     $250,000.
       This case is being investigated by special agents of the 
     Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement, and postal inspectors of the United States 
     Postal Inspection Service.
       Assistant United States Attorneys Teresa D. Hoyt and Jon-
     Peter Kelly are prosecuting the case.
       Members of the public are reminded that the indictment 
     contains only allegations. A defendant is presumed innocent 
     of the charges and it will be the government's burden to 
     prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 
up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reed are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. REED. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 4038, As Modified

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
4038, previously agreed to, be modified to reflect a technical change 
in the instruction line of the amendment. The modification is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 4038), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 264, strike lines 10 through 20.
       On page 370, line 21, strike ``this subsection'' and insert 
     ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''.

  Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had some good debate this week 
on the immigration bill that is before the Senate. We made some 
progress toward improving the legislation. I think

[[Page 8794]]

to some degree the good and decent and deeply felt views of the 
American people are beginning to be heard--but not clearly enough in 
this body. We still need to listen to them more.
  I submit that on every single issue the American people have it 
right. We discussed last night and debated last night some key issues. 
I know one of the supporters of the bill described this as a difficult 
issue, complicated, emotional, but we are trying to do something. He 
suggested that was courageous and we should be not afraid to move 
forward. Well, we do need to move forward but we did not have to move 
forward on this bill. We could have moved forward, as the House did, 
taking the first step to ensure that we have a legitimate legal system 
of enforcement that works, and then we could move on to the 
comprehensive solution of what to do with the illegal alien population 
and the future immigration policies of the United states. We can do 
that separately, or we can try to do them together at the same time.
  I was inclined to believe that we weren't ready to deal with this 
issue comprehensively. That is why I thought the House's idea wasn't so 
bad. But it was complained about on this side, with great moral 
superiority, that their approach to security first was somehow bad and 
not worthy of respect.
  I think it is very worthy of respect. In fact, I think this bill 
would show that we probably would have been better off to have followed 
their lead. This is the great Senate of the United States of America, 
and we are not here just to do something, anything. We are here to do 
the right thing. We are here to confront one of the big issues of our 
time, and to do it in a way that is consistent with our laws and our 
values and the values of the American people. That is what we should 
do. That is our responsibility to our constituents, to our posterity, 
to the heritage we have been given. That is absolutely our 
responsibility.
  I will tell you, and I will say it plainly, and others may not, but 
this legislation fails miserably in that regard. It is unworthy of the 
Senate. It should never pass, it should never become the law of the 
United States of America. It does not meet our highest ideals. It does 
not create a system that is consistent with the national interest of 
the United States.
  Let me say with regard to the work that we did this week, I will sort 
of run down and point out some of the things that occurred, some good 
things occurred, and some things that were not so good that occurred. 
Also, in my time today, I want to move from that to a more thoughtful 
discussion of what any good immigration reform bill should have in it, 
what issues it should deal with, and point out how this bill is 
defective in the most fundamental way it lacks the basic principles of 
any good immigration reform bill.
  We started out on the floor of the Senate with a 614-page bill , My 
staff, Cindy Hayden and her team, discovered that the bill on the floor 
that they were urging passage of would have brought 78.7 to 217 million 
legal immigrants into the United States in 20 years, equal to 26 to 66 
percent of the entire total population of the United States of America 
of 298 million. That is what we were being asked to vote on.
  I believe we were correct. We were the only group, apparently, to 
have ever researched this, and I think that includes the authors 
themselves.
  Those who were opposed to this bill were being accused of wanting to 
lock up people and close our borders and not let anybody in and do all 
these horrible things, which was never the case. We simply said let's 
talk about a good policy for America.
  We attempted to deal with the important issue of making sure 
enforcement will happen. I raised it in the Judiciary Committee and got 
a modest amendment on this issue passed. The Presiding Officer, Senator 
Isakson from Georgia, went right to the heart of the issue and drafted 
a very good amendment that I thought had a very good chance to pass, 
and should have passed, and it deals with this fundamental problem, 
most clearly demonstrated by what happened in 1986.
  In 1986, they passed comprehensive amnesty and immigration reform. 
Those who were in the Senate then--I was not yet here--and remember the 
debate know it was an amnesty to end all amnesties. It was supposed to 
create a legal immigration system, and we were told we would not have 
to do this again. Those concerned about it warned, however, one amnesty 
begets another amnesty. The more you go down that path, the easier it 
is. This sends a signal to the world that we are not serious about our 
laws. In that one bill in 1986, we passed the amnesty, and we 
authorized a number of things to occur that were supposed to result in 
an effective legal system. Well, the amnesty became law just like that. 
But the other things that the enforcement side took--the required 
funding and congressional assistance, and mostly Presidential 
leadership--never occurred. It didn't occur.
  So Senator Isakson came up with an amendment this week that I thought 
was pretty good. It basically would have ensured that the borders were 
secure before any of the amnesty provisions could be implemented. They 
are telling us constantly that the borders are going to be made secure 
if we pass this bill, so let's hold their feet to the fire and say this 
time the American people want to have a little hold on you before you 
grant amnesty again. Let's be sure the borders are secure first, that 
Congress won't forget that goal after the bill passes. Without the 
Isakson language, the amnesty provisions in the bill take effect the 
day the bill is signed. But we didn't accept that amendment. Instead, 
we will remain in the position where we hope that we will have 
immigration enforcement in the future. We accepted the Salazar trigger 
amendment that simply requires the President to determine that the 
bill's amnesty and guest worker provisions will ``strengthen the 
national security of the United States.''
  That is not sufficient. That doesn't go to the meat of the issue like 
Senator Isakson proposed. And why was it rejected? Why was it rejected? 
I have had a suspicion and a growing suspicion over the years that this 
Congress is always willing to pass some bits of legislation dealing 
with immigration. But if any piece of legislation hits the floor of the 
Senate that will actually work, that is when the system pushes back 
and, for one reason or another, one excuse after another, it never 
happens. So I think this would have worked, and that is the reason it 
got rejected.
  What else occurred, good and bad, through the week? My amendment was 
accepted 83 to 16 to put 870 miles of physical barriers on the border, 
370 miles of fencing, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers--a good 
amendment, consistent with what the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
the President said they desired. We probably need more, but we need at 
least that. It was accepted.
  Amusingly, I saw in the paper--I wasn't there when the final vote was 
counted, but I saw in the paper that 17 Senators changed their votes, 
mostly on the other side, the Democratic side, after it became clear 
the amendment was going to pass. Many Senators, for months, have been 
rolling their eyes and said we don't need fences. That is not very 
good. That is not a good thing to do. Fences will work, trust me. They 
will work. But that, of course, begets the objection, I suspect. But 
when we voted, it was interesting that we ended up with a vote of 83 to 
16, suggesting that the American people are beginning to have their 
voices heard a little bit in Congress.
  Then perhaps the most significant amendment that was adopted was a 
Bingaman amendment. It would reduce the incredible escalating number 
under the new H-2C visa foreign worker program. Under the original 
bill, the numbers were unbelievable. The amendment reduced the total 
number of immigrants that would have come into the United States if 
that bill became law from 78 to 217 million to a lower 73 million to 93 
million. That was a strong vote for that provision and we make progress 
in reducing the numbers.
  However, this bill, S. 2611, still enacts a four- to fivefold 
increase over

[[Page 8795]]

the current levels of legal immigration into America over 20 years. 
Current law would bring in 18.9 million over 20 years. Did you get 
that? This bill, if passed today, even after the Bingaman amendment 
passed by a substantial majority, would still bring into our country 
three, four, five times--at least four times, I suggest--the number of 
people who can come into our country legally today.
  That is a huge number and will lead us at the end of 20 years to have 
the highest percentage of foreign-born Americans this Nation has ever 
had in its history, including the great migration period between 1880 
and 1925. It is a colossal bill still in terms of those numbers.
  The Senate also accepted, after rejecting it 3 weeks ago when the 
bill first came up--the bill was pulled from the floor because we 
couldn't get a vote on Senator Kyl's amendment to make certain that 
criminals are not given amnesty under the bill. It was a simple 
amendment to say criminals, felons, couldn't be given amnesty, and we 
couldn't get a vote on that amendment. It was so bad apparently, the 
Democratic leader was so determined to block this vote, that Senator 
Frist pulled the bill down.
  As time went on, we were ready to vote on that amendment, and they 
accepted it, not graciously, but they took it. It certainly makes sense 
that we do that.
  The Senate rejected the Vitter amendment by a substantial amount--66 
people voted against it--which would strike the bill's provisions that 
adjust the illegal alien population to lawful permanent residents, the 
so-called amnesty provision.
  The Senate narrowly accepted the Cornyn amendment, 50 to 48, which 
protects U.S. jobs for workers by making sure the H-2C visa holder can 
only apply for green cards if they have actually worked--they are 
supposed to work--if they actually worked for 4 years and their 
employer attests they will still have a job after they are given a 
green card, and the Secretary of Labor determines there are not enough 
U.S. workers available to fill the job position.
  Then the very next vote, a companion amendment by Senator Kennedy 
which was adopted with 56 votes, gutted that protection, in effect, and 
it no longer requires that the employer promise to continue to employ 
an H-2C alien.
  Federal benefits was a key vote yesterday. The Senate shockingly 
rejected the Ensign amendment 50 to 49--close, close vote--that would 
have prevented aliens from collecting Social Security benefits as a 
result of their illegal entry into the country, their illegal work, and 
their illegal presentation of a Social Security number. Fraudulent 
presentation of a Social Security number and criminal entry into the 
United States, and this bill provides they can draw Social Security. We 
had an amendment to clarify that issue, and the Senate voted to keep 
the provision in the bill.
  Social Security is in trouble now. Thankfully, the Senate accepted 
the Cornyn amendment that assessed a $750 fine to illegal aliens that 
will go into the State impact assistance account, and the money will be 
used to help the States pay for costs that are connected with 
immigration.
  The Senate accepted an amendment by Senator Inhofe on a 63-to-34 
vote, 34 Senators voting no, stating that English is a national 
language and strengthening the citizenship test where one is supposed 
to know something about the Constitution, the Declaration of 
Independence, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and crew, 
and the history of the United States. It would strengthen that a bit. 
But 34 Senators voted against that amendment. It was adopted. We are 
moving forward.
  My good friend, Senator Cornyn, who is as positive and effective a 
Senator as we have had join us in quite a long time, said that we made 
a lot of progress this week. I say we made some progress. I want to 
share with my colleagues why I think there are serious problems in the 
legislation.
  Last week, I detailed 15 loopholes in the bill that is before us 
today. Of those 15, maybe 4, 5, 6 have been fixed in significant part, 
leaving 8 or 9 that have not been fixed. I will not go over those at 
this time, but I do want to say that those concerns I raised last week 
are very real. They really need to be fixed. Those loopholes need to be 
closed. Those concerns need to be dealt with. I am prepared to debate 
or negotiate with anyone about the importance of those points I made 
last week. I think most American people would agree with me on every 
single one of those issues.
  Today I wish to talk about a more broad concern with the bill and its 
potential impact. I again emphasize that we are sensitive to the good 
and decent people who come here. Those of us who are unhappy with the 
way this bill is written are not against immigration and not against 
immigrants; we are not for closing our borders and not for not having 
anymore immigration. That is all foolish. We are not for arresting 
people by the tens of thousands and hauling them out of the country. 
That is not going to happen. But, I don't think the view of the House 
of Representatives, that we ought to deal with enforcement first and 
demonstrate that we can create a lawful and workable system first, is 
immoral, impractical, or radical. It makes a lot of sense to me.
  Secondly, I am not aware of any Member of Congress who favors hostile 
or extreme measures in dealing with the issues today. We want 
immigration to occur. We will expect to see some increases in 
immigration, but we want it to be legal, under policies and terms that 
are appropriate for the United States of America.
  The American people are with us on this issue. They expect us to 
create an immigration system that works and is legal. They don't want 
to reward those who break into our country with every single benefit we 
provide to those who come legally. To me, that is, indeed, amnesty.
  The American people do not think big business and advocacy groups 
should be able to meet in secret and create some great design of a 
plan, foist it on the Senate, and that we can't consider it, review it, 
and reject it if we need to.
  That is basically part of the debate we had last night. It was 
argued: Well, there has been a great compromise. Sessions, you and the 
American people, your views weren't part of it, but we know better for 
our country than you do. And if you amend this section, the compromise 
will collapse, and the bill may not get passed. You can't change this 
bill.
  The section we were trying to change was the section that is as bogus 
as any part of the bill. It is the section that is captioned in big 
print: temporary guest worker. That is what the President has been 
saying he favors. He told me that personally a couple of days ago. He 
told me, when he flew to Alabama, that he believed in temporary 
workers. But it is not so that this bill creates a temporary worker 
program. I challenge any one last night to tell me that what I am 
saying is not true.
  Under this bill, under that rubric of big print language, 
``Nonimmigrant Visa Reform, Subsection A, Temporary Guest Workers''--
what it really says is if you come into this country under this work 
visa you get to convert your status to a green card holder--a legal 
permanent resident that can then become a citizen. Somebody said last 
night: Why are people afraid to discuss this issue? I say to the 
supporters of the bill: Why are you afraid to tell the truth about your 
bill? Why do you title the section one thing and then write it to 
actually do another?
  Why are you putting in here ``temporary guest workers'' when there is 
nothing ``temporary'' or ``guest'' about them. Why? Are they afraid the 
American people will find out what is really in that provision which 
would have brought in, had it not been amended by Senator Bingaman, 
perhaps 130 million new people into the country permanently? What kind 
of temporary program is that?
  How does it work? This is the way it works: You come in, get a job; 
you come in under this guest worker proposal, and within the first day 
you arrive, your employer can seek a green

[[Page 8796]]

card for you. If you qualify--and most will--then that green card will 
be issued, and you are then a legal permanent resident. You are a legal 
permanent resident within weeks or months of entry into the country, 
and within 5 years of being a legal permanent resident and having a 
green card, you can apply for citizenship. If you know a little English 
and don't get arrested and convicted of a felony, you will be made a 
citizen by right under that provision. So it is not a temporary guest 
worker program. We need one in the bill. It is not there. That is what 
the President says he supports.
  The American people don't think we ought to huddle up, have some 
groups come in and meet with a few Senators and have them foist on the 
American people an immigration bill that ignores their concerns about 
legality and their legitimate concerns over the depressing of the wages 
of American citizens. That is not a myth. The law of supply and demand 
has not been abrogated with regard to wages and labor.
  In terms of lawfulness, decency, morality, and the national interest, 
the American people are head and shoulders above the Members of 
Congress who are asserting and pushing this flawed legislation. A huge 
majority of the American people have been right on this issue for 
decades. It is the executive branch and the Congress that have been 
derelict in their most solemn duties. If the American people had been 
listened to and not been stiff-armed by an arrogant elitist bureaucracy 
and political class, we wouldn't have 11 million to 20 million people 
in our country illegally today.
  The American people have been concerned about this issue--and the 
polls have shown it--for 20, 30 years. So what is our national interest 
and what policies should we pursue? What about border workforce 
enforcement? Any good bill would include a good enforcement system at 
the border and workplace.
  We should focus our policies on higher skill needs, college degrees, 
instead of low-wage workers. Serious consideration should be given to 
how we welcome new immigrants into the American world and have them 
reach their fullest and highest aspirations. We are not able to do that 
under the current system, and we certainly should fix this illegality 
and actually provide some mechanism for a large number of people to 
come out from the shadows, as they say.
  We should consider seriously the impact of wages on the American 
workers, and we need to consider what other developed nations, such as 
Canada, Britain, and France are doing. How are they confronting these 
questions? Why don't we do that? I will tell you why we don't. It is 
because this bill is totally incompatible and inconsistent with the 
principles those advanced nations are following.
  All of this must be done with the full recognition that America 
cannot accept everyone who might want to come here, and that is just a 
fact.
  I recently took a trip with Chairman Specter of the Judiciary 
Committee to South America. We were provided State Department news 
clips. There was an article about a poll in Nicaragua that said 60 
percent of the people in Nicaragua would come to the United States if 
they could. Sixty percent of the people of Nicaragua said they would 
come to the United States if they could.
  We next stopped in Peru, and I asked one of the officials at the 
Embassy about that poll and asked him did he think it was true. He said 
they just had a poll in Peru earlier this year--I mean this year, both 
these polls were this year--earlier this year, he said, and 70 percent 
of the people of Peru said they would come to the United States if they 
could. What about the whole world? We have people who want to come from 
India and China and South America and Brazil and Haiti and the 
Dominican Republic and the Middle East and Bangladesh and Taiwan and 
the Philippines. These are good people. I am not putting any of them 
down. I am just saying for an absolute fact--an absolute fact--that we 
cannot accept everybody who would like to come here. Therefore, we 
should decide how to create a system that makes the laws enforceable 
and then enforce them, and we ought to seek to bring in people who 
provide the greatest asset to America.
  So we will be confronting another issue we need to confront, and that 
is chain migration. Once a person comes in and they get that green card 
and then they become a citizen, once they get the green card, they can 
bring their wife and children. They may have six children. And the wife 
gets to come and the children get to come. Then, in addition to that, 
once they become a citizen, they can bring their parents and their 
brothers and sisters, even if it is a large number of them. They can 
bring, through this chain migration system, huge numbers of people who 
may not be what our Nation needs at the time. Maybe there is a glut in 
the skills their brother or sister has. Maybe those things would 
mitigate against them. And maybe there is some college graduate in the 
Dominican Republic who is anxious to come but does not qualify, cannot 
get in because the visas have been used up by this chain migration 
process, which makes no sense and needs to be altered.
  Also, we need to consider the impact on the Federal Treasury. Even as 
a green card holder and as a citizen, you are entitled to an earned 
income tax credit. Most of the people legalized or coming in under this 
bill would be lower wage workers, and the earned income tax credit for 
those who qualify amounts to a tax refund to a lower wage worker on 
average of $2,400 per worker, per year. So they would qualify for the 
earned income tax credit, their parents would qualify for SSI health 
care, Social Security benefits as we have in this bill, welfare 
benefits, education, and health care. The bill calls for instate 
tuition for illegal immigrants. That is still in here via the DREAM 
Act. Those kinds of things are in this bill.
  So we have had a week of some productivity, but we have much more to 
do in creating a bill that is fundamentally worthy of this Senate and 
that will deal in an effective way with where we are heading in the 
future.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague from Washington, Senator Wyden. I 
don't know how long he wants to speak. I have some more to go. If he is 
not going to be particularly long, I would--
  Mr. WYDEN. Would my colleague yield just briefly for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I was going to talk for about 15 minutes or 
so. I would be happy to wait for my friend from Alabama, if he would 
like to finish. How much longer do you intend to speak?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Probably longer than that. A good bit; probably 30 or 
so minutes more. So I would be pleased to yield to the Senator if he is 
ready and pick up after that. I think I am going to be closing out the 
Senate when we finish up, anyway.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would be ready in just a couple of 
minutes to start. If my colleague would like to go on for a couple of 
additional minutes, and then I will speak, and then he could return.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Sounds great.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank him for his courtesy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So one of the most significant issues facing America 
today is how many immigrants will be allowed to enter the United States 
and become citizens. I am not sure we have given any thought to that. 
As I said, when we announced at the beginning of this week that the 
numbers could be as high as 200 million people allowed into the 
country, I don't think most Senators had any idea that was so. My staff 
worked that up at about the same time the Heritage Foundation did their 
own independent analysis, and they were very close in numbers to ours. 
I hope that played a role in our ability to pass a bill the next night 
that did bring those numbers down. As I say, we are now looking at 
about 73 million to 93 million more people legally coming into our 
country in the next 20 years.
  I wish to emphasize this: Don't think those are small numbers. We are 
a 300 million-person country right now, and I am talking about 4 times 
the legal immigration rate presently existing in

[[Page 8797]]

our country. Under the current law, we would have 19 million come in 
over 20 years. Under this bill, we would have 73 million to 93 million 
coming in by a short 20 years from now.
  I asked the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on April 19 to 
examine the full impact of the legislation and what we could do about 
it. I asked that we examine what the estimated numerical impact is of 
the immigration proposal and how does the future chain migration of 
family members impact the total immigration numbers under the proposal. 
I asked that we have hearings on what will be the legislation's 
estimated fiscal impact on the Federal Treasury as well as State and 
local governments; how will the entitlement programs such as Medicaid, 
TANF, and food stamps be affected; what level of immigration in the 
future is in our best national, economic, social, and cultural 
interests; and what categories of immigrants in terms of skills and 
education should compose the overall level of annual immigration. I 
stated that we need to have a national discussion on this issue. The 
American people need to be involved.
  We had one committee hearing, and it lasted about 2 to 3 hours and 
three or four Senators came. The individual provisions of the bill have 
never been examined by any committee. Let me state that again. The 
individual provisions of the bill on the Senate floor have never been 
examined by any committee. But every witness who came to that one 
hearing acknowledged that high-skilled immigrants are good for the 
economy and that low-skilled immigrants are a net drain on the 
economy--on average, not every single one. Many of them turn out to be 
productive and go on and be productive. But on average, from an 
economist point of view, based on the data we have, they tend to take 
out more in taxes than they pay in taxes.
  I sent a second letter asking for further committee hearings. I 
wanted to examine the numerical figures in the bill, the fiscal impact, 
but we never had any hearings on that.
  So we did our studies on the legislation, and we came out with these 
numbers. We did our calculations, and we believe the numbers would run 
from 80 million or more people coming in over 20 years to perhaps 200 
million people. Two hundred million would be two-thirds of the current 
population of the United States of America.
  So we worked hard on those numbers. I don't think they were ever 
seriously challenged. This is the way it ran. Under current levels of 
legal immigration, there would be 18.9 million people coming into the 
country. If we had passed this legislation as it originally was when it 
hit the floor, we would have had 78.7 million at a minimum coming in--4 
times the current level of immigration--and it could have hit the 
maximum of 217 million, according to our calculations--about 11 times 
the current level of immigration. So those are huge numbers. I think 
they caused great concern.
  After the amendment Senator Bingaman offered was passed and it took 
out that 20-percent-per-year escalator clause on the 325,000-person 
guest worker program per year--under this new program, if you hit that 
325,000 one year, automatically the next year's limit was 20 percent 
more, automatically the next year would be 20 percent more, and 
automatically the next year would be 20 percent more. I think that 
would have sent a clear signal to the entire world that the United 
States was going to accept huge numbers of immigrants, and I believe we 
would have had applications flooding in and it would have been a very 
serious problem. We did pare that back to 200,000 per year without any 
20 percent increase over 20 years, and that made the huge difference I 
just mentioned. So now about 73 million to 93 million will come in over 
20 years, 4 to 5 times the current rate.
  I submit that is still far too large a number. We have had no real 
serious national discussion about what impact that would have on 
working Americans, what impact it would have on our welfare and our 
cultural ability to assimilate and welcome foreign visitors and workers 
who come to our country, and I think it would cause us great 
difficulty. So we still need to talk about that.
  I ask my colleagues and those in the media, how much have you heard 
this discussed? How many people in the Senate have actually discussed 
and debated and acknowledged how huge a change this is and whether it 
is the kind of change we should carry out? Has it even been discussed? 
Oh, but they say, we have to pass something. We just have to pass 
something and get it off our plate. You know, the Senate has a lot to 
do. We are busy. Let's just move on it. Let's just show courage. Let's 
just move it on and get something to the House.
  Oddly, some of the people who have been making the most fun and 
complaining about the House of Representatives for their enforcement 
approach are now justifying and asking us to pass the bill on the basis 
of, well, it will get better after we go over to the House. They tell 
me to not be so worried about all of these provisions because the House 
Members will never agree to it and we might make the bill better in 
conference.
  That is kind of an odd argument to make. If you are so holy and so 
righteous, why don't you come down here and defend these numbers they 
tried to slip by 3 weeks ago without a single amendment being 
considered by the Senate. They tried to move that through here. 
Finally, it blew up and Senator Frist pulled the bill down, insisting 
that at least there be some amendments considered as we move this piece 
of legislation forward.
  So, Mr. President, in a few minutes I will share a few more remarks 
on some of the specific concerns I have involving this philosophy of 
the bill in a few moments. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wyden are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. WYDEN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I yielded the floor to Senator Wyden a 
few moments ago, and I wish to complete some thoughts.
  I documented without any real dispute that the provisions in the bill 
before the Senate today will increase legal immigration into our 
country by an extraordinary amount, by four to five times the current 
levels. That is a huge increase.
  At the same time, we have done the research on it, and I will not go 
into the details, but the programs that allow most of the people to 
come into our country favor low-skilled workers. We think from 70 to 
90, maybe 92 percent of the workers who will come in under the 
provisions of the bill in the Senate today will come in as low-skilled 
workers. That is very significant because it is quite clear from every 
professional, independent, pro-immigration economist who has analyzed 
it that low-skilled workers do not tend to pay as much in taxes as they 
take out. They become a net drain on the Treasury of the United States. 
That is an important issue. If we are going to do comprehensive reform, 
why haven't we discussed this issue? I ask my colleagues and those who 
promoted the legislation before the Senate today, has that been 
discussed with the American people? Have we had extensive hearings in 
committees on this question? The answer is no.
  In fact, if you read the bill, you will discover there has been a 
studied and carefully carried out plan to conceal how many people will 
come in under the temporary guest worker programs when, in fact, what 
they mislabel as a temporary program is in fact a permanent worker 
program that leads on a

[[Page 8798]]

direct path to citizenship in fairly short order. I am talking about 
the future immigration programs in the bill here. I am not talking 
about the other 11 to 20 million illegal aliens who may claim amnesty 
under this bill.
  If we are going to do a comprehensive plan, why don't we think first 
and foremost about what our Nation needs, what the implications are for 
immigration, how it has enriched us in so many ways in the past, how 
many wonderful, decent people come here. But we also need to ask 
ourselves, what are the limits of immigration? What are the aspects of 
it that could be better handled? We need to think these things through 
in a careful, legitimate way, focusing on the legitimate national 
interests of the United States of America, because it is not our policy 
and cannot be the policy of any nation to allow immigrants into their 
nation solely on the basis that it is good for the immigrant.
  I don't want to be harsh about this. I am not being unkind. We want 
to have immigration. I will support an increase in legal immigration 
over the current levels if it is a reasonable increase focused in the 
right direction and promotes the interests of the United States. We 
will have more coming in, but we need to ask the question of how we 
should do it, who should be allowed to take advantage of the limited 
number of slots we can legitimately bestow on those who come here.
  It cannot be their choice, but there seems to be talk here that 
reminds me of entitlement talks, rights talks, that someone in a 
foreign nation around the world has some sort of right to come to 
America, an entitlement to come to America, that we cannot deny them. 
Where did that come from? That is not true in any other nation in the 
world. It is an example of muddled thinking.
  It is Mr. Barone who wrote a book called ``Hard America, Soft 
America.'' Sometimes we need to just have clear thinking. Some things 
you just need to make a decision about. One of those is the number of 
people who can come into our country is limited. A great nation, a wise 
nation, wants to make sure the people who come into the country best 
suit and best foster that nation's progress. How simple is that?
  Let's talk about the national impact of low-skilled workers versus 
high-skilled workers. I asked for a series of hearings. We got one 
hearing. It went 2 or 3 hours. We had good professors, but only three 
or four Senators showed up. I have some of the testimony from that 
hearing and some other information relevant to that important question 
that I will read from in a minute. Shouldn't we be talking about those 
things? We are talking about a lot of issues that may be hot buttons 
and of concern, and I am pleased we have a fence at the border, but at 
the same time, the great Senate of the United States needs to think 
about the future.
  This is what we learned. The economic experts who testified before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 25, 2006, at the immigration 
economic impacts hearing agreed that low-skilled immigrants unavoidably 
depress the wages of American workers in low-skilled job categories. 
They held, it is fair to say, a common consensus. Some are pro-
immigration, and they argue benefits and other things, but they all 
held a common consensus that high-skilled immigrants are better for the 
economy than low-skilled workers. Low-skilled workers are an overall 
net drain on the economy.
  Professor Richard Freeman, the Herbert S. Ascherman professor of 
economics at Harvard University, testified, among other things:

       One of the concerns of when immigrants come into the 
     country is that they may take some jobs from Americans or 
     drive down the wages of some Americans. Obviously, if there 
     are a large number of immigrants coming in, and if they are 
     coming in at a bad economic time, that's very likely to 
     happen.

  He went on to talk about the impact of high-skilled workers. He 
noted:

       I think America makes a huge gain, and much of the gains 
     are to us. Some of the gains are to the immigrants, of 
     course.
  You will notice he says that more than once. He talks about who 
actually gains from immigration. For low skilled workers who come here, 
it is a gain to them because they are coming to a better and freer and 
more prosperous country. But the real question our Nation should ask 
is, How does it benefit us? He says:

       There are gains to us from high-skilled workers and to the 
     immigrants.

  He goes on to say:

       Having a lot of immigrants coming in at the top, it does 
     make it more difficult for some young Americans to advance in 
     those fields, but we can recompense the young Americans with 
     other policies.

  He goes on to note:

       It's very important to understand that the biggest 
     beneficiaries from immigration tend to be the immigrants, 
     particularly if you are a low-skilled immigrant.

  He adds this:

       If you are a poor immigrant, your income in the United 
     States will be six to eight times what it is in Mexico.

  Professor Dan Siciliano, director of the program in law, economics, 
and business at the Stanford Law School, a pretty good law school, is a 
pretty strong advocate in favor of immigration, but he talked about the 
question of the cost of low-skilled immigrants. He said:

       If you look at the fiscal/economic impact, which is the 
     Government's coffers impact, it might be true that lower-
     skilled workers, just like all of us, have a negative impact 
     on the fiscal bottom line. And so we may have a modest net 
     negative fiscal impact for all low-wage workers in the United 
     States, not just immigrants. This is not unique to 
     immigrants, documented or undocumented.

  What he was saying is that low-skilled American workers who are not 
trained, not skilled, and not educated, will draw more from the Federal 
Treasury than they put into it. That is one of the reasons we work so 
hard to train and provide skills to American workers, so they can rise 
and be successful and reach their highest possible aspirations. But 
when that does not occur, it does have a cost to the economy. Why would 
you want to import large numbers who don't have skills when there are 
large numbers of people with skills who want to come here?
  Dr. Barry Chiswick, head of and research professor at the Department 
of Economics at the University of Illinois in Chicago, said this:

       What about the impact on low-skilled American workers? How 
     does a large amount of new labor into the country impact 
     American workers of low skill?

  He was blunt. He told it like it was. He said:

       There is a competition in the labor market, and the large 
     increase in low-skilled immigration that we have seen over 
     the last 20 years has had a substantial negative effect on 
     the employment and earnings opportunities of low-skilled 
     American workers.

  He goes on to add:

       The large increase in low-skilled immigration has had the 
     effect of decreasing the wages and employment opportunities 
     of low-skilled workers who are currently resident in the 
     United States.

  We have some Members on the other side who want to bring in five 
times as many low-skilled workers as we bring in today. Do they want to 
dispute the professor from Chicago?
  He goes on to say:

       The last amnesty [in 1986] actually encouraged additional 
     low-skilled immigration in anticipation of further amnesties.

  I went back and saw the summary of the debate in 1986. People who 
opposed that amnesty predicted that we were going to be driven 
inevitably to future amnesties and we should stand on principle and fix 
the system in 1986. This professor clearly agreed that their prediction 
has come true.
  He goes on to add:

       Over the past two decades, the real earnings of high-
     skilled workers have risen substantially. The real earnings 
     of low-skilled workers have either stagnated or decreased 
     somewhat.

  That is a sad statement. It is a sad event, if it is true, because 
people are doing well today. The economy is booming. But as I will 
point out to my colleagues in further remarks, the wages for low-
skilled workers are not increasing. They are not sharing in the 
benefits of the progress and prosperity this Nation is enjoying at this 
point. We have an agreement here struck between the Chamber of Commerce 
and some political activist groups to move this bill through, and they 
are not concerned sufficiently about the interests of decent American 
citizens who may not have the highest skills. These Americans, however, 
are entitled to a

[[Page 8799]]

decent wage and their wages should be going up in this time of 
prosperity.
  Dr. Chiswick goes on to say:

       We need to provide greater assistance to low-skilled 
     Americans in their quest for better jobs and higher wages, 
     and one of the ways we can help them in this regard is by 
     reducing the very substantial competition that they're facing 
     from this very large and uncontrolled low-skilled immigration 
     that is the result of both our legal immigration system and 
     the absence of enforcement of immigration law.

  I lay this on the table, like I have done before. If people want to 
disagree with Professor Chiswick, let's have them down here and explain 
that. Professor Samuelson and a lot of others agree with him, and the 
numbers tend to confirm that. When you have a shortage of labor, a 
laboring man's value goes up because he can demand a high wage. When 
you have a large amount of low-wage people willing to go out and take a 
job, it can drive down wages an American worker can expect to get when 
they go out and seek a job. I don't believe we are going to repeal the 
law of economics for labor. It has always been there, and it always 
will be.
  Dr. Chiswick also shared with us his thoughts about the cost of low-
skilled immigrants, and he notes:

       Low-skilled immigrants make greater use of government 
     benefits and transfers than they pay in taxes.

  I am not condemning anybody. We should not condemn anybody. We have a 
nation that is generous and wants to help people who have difficulties 
getting by in life. We are always going to do that.
  But he says:

       Low-skilled immigrants make greater use of government 
     benefits and transfers than they pay in taxes. So in terms of 
     the public coffers, they serve as a net drain. Whereas high-
     skilled immigrants have the opposite effect. And the 
     consequences of low-skilled immigration are pretty much the 
     same whether they are in legal status or illegal status, 
     although the net effect on the public coffers is actually 
     more negative for legal immigrants who are low-skilled 
     immigrants.

  Did you hear that? Once they become legal and get a green card or 
become a citizen, they are entitled to more benefits than when they are 
illegal. But in fact, both of them turn out to be net drains on the 
coffers of the United States, according to Professor Chiswick.
  He goes on to say:

       And if you do the analysis separately for high-skilled and 
     low-skilled immigrants, what you would find is that even in a 
     period of surplus, low-skilled immigrants would be paying 
     less in taxes than the burdens that they would be putting on 
     government expenditures.

  Mr. Siciliano, who is more pro-immigrant and sees it in a more 
positive light, interjected and said:

       Truthfully, just like low-skilled U.S. workers.

  And Professor Chiswick responded:

       Just like low-skilled natives, yes.

  Mr. Siciliano responds:

       Yes, in no different way than low-skilled U.S. workers.

  And Mr. Chiswick replied:

       But low skilled natives are here. And low-skilled 
     immigrants, do we want them in?

  In unlimited numbers, I would add. What about high-skilled 
immigrants? What did Mr. Chiswick say about that?

       Two-thirds of the immigrants coming into the United States 
     annually come in under kinship criteria.

  That is chain migration.

       Only about 7 percent are skill tested. For only about 7 
     percent do we really ask the question what will you 
     contribute to the American economy?

  He goes on to say:

       We need to alter our immigration policies to increase the 
     focus on attracting high ability, high-skilled immigrants. 
     What we want to do is attract those immigrants who would have 
     the largest positive contribution to the American economy, 
     and they will be highly skilled immigrants, immigrants with 
     high skills in literacy, numeracy, scientific knowledge, 
     technical training. Current immigration law pays very, very 
     little attention to the skills that immigrants bring to the 
     United States.

  That is his statement. It is something we need to think about as we 
pass a bill that pretends to be comprehensive.
  Professor Harry Holder, also testifying at our hearing, who was 
associate dean and professor of public policy at Georgetown University, 
another pretty good university, said this about the impact of low-
skilled American workers:

       There are jobs in industries like construction that I think 
     are more appealing to native born workers. And many native 
     born, low-income men might be interested in more of those 
     jobs, although employers often prefer the immigrants, 
     especially in residential construction. Now, absent the 
     immigrants, employers might need to raise those wages and 
     improve those conditions of work to entice native born 
     workers into those construction, agriculture, janitorial, 
     food preparation jobs.
       I believe that when immigrants are illegal, they do more to 
     undercut the wages of native born workers because the playing 
     field isn't level and the employers don't have to pay them 
     market wages.

  He was then asked about future immigration policy, and he said:

       I agree with Professor Chiswick. We are not ready to open 
     the floodgates of immigration. We will continue to have 
     controls on immigration. And we need to find cost-effective 
     and humane ways to limit those immigrants.

  So we didn't get five hearings. We didn't get a national dialog. We 
had one hearing for a few hours and a number of professors, pretty much 
those professors who consider themselves pro-immigrant, and that is 
what they told us.
  Let me share a few more points on that subject from another 
individual. The Washington Times, on May 8, published a column by Alan 
Tomlinson. He is an official with the U.S. Business and Industry 
Council Educational Foundation. He went back and did some studies and 
dealt with this allegation that without ever increasing flows of 
immigrants, representatives of numerous industries have warned their 
sectors will literally run out of workers and the economy will 
collapse. He was not so impressed after he did some studies. He said:

       Most statistics available show conclusively that far from 
     easing shortages, illegal immigrants are adding to labor 
     gluts in America.
  Think about that. He says that we don't have a shortage, we have a 
glut.

       Specifically, wages in sectors highly dependent on 
     illegals, when adjusted for inflation, are either stagnant or 
     have actually fallen. When labor is genuinely scarce and too 
     many employers are chasing too few workers, businesses 
     typically bid wages up in the competition to fill jobs. When 
     too many workers are chasing too few jobs, employers 
     typically are able to cut wages, confident that beggars can't 
     be choosers.

  Then he checked the Department of Labor statistics. He says this:

       The Labor Department data revealed that the wage-cutting 
     scenario is exactly what has unfolded recently throughout the 
     economy's illegal immigrant heavy sectors.

  Then he talked about restaurants. We hear there are not enough people 
to work in restaurants. Illegal immigrants comprise 17 percent of the 
food preparation workers, 20 percent of cooks, and 23 percent of 
dishwashers. What did he find?

       According to the data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics, through inflation-adjusted wages for the broad 
     food services and drinking categories, wages fell in real 
     terms 1.65 percent between 2000 and 2005.

  If there is a crisis to get cooks and dishwashers, how are they able 
to cut salaries? How does the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 
salaries went down? This is one of the areas where we have the most 
numbers of illegal immigrants.
  He then goes on to talk about the hospitality industry, which 
includes hotels. They say we have to have a person who puts that 
chocolate on your bed every night and makes up your bed and comes in 
and puts your toiletries in a line for you, whether you want that or 
not. You have to have them. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data, 
according to him, who studied them, show that inflation-adjusted wages 
fell nearly 1.1 percent from 2000 to 2005. So hotels are booming, and 
they are building new hotels, and they say they cannot get workers.
  Why are wages not going up? Perhaps if they pay a little more money 
to decent American citizens, they might be able to get more to work. 
They may have to charge $180 instead of $170 a night for a room. Is 
that going to destroy the American economy? I think not. Maybe the 
average American worker would be better able to participate in the 
prosperity that is going on.

[[Page 8800]]

  He talked about the construction industry. He says that, 
interestingly, from 1993 to 2005, wages in that sector only increased 3 
percent. That is 12 years. The wages, according to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, in the construction industry area only increased 3 percent 
in 12 years. From 2000 through 2005, at the height of the housing boom, 
inflation-adjusted wages actually fell 1.59 percent. So we have this 
crisis in workers, and wages are falling.
  He then talks about food manufacturing. They make up a big part of 
that. Let me point out that even in the construction industry, the 
illegal immigrants make up only 12 percent of the workforce. So this 
argument that you cannot get anybody who is native-born to work in 
construction is bogus. The one thing that hurts me the most when I hear 
President Bush say it is when he says these are jobs Americans won't 
do. I reject that. He should never say that. These are good jobs, 
honorable jobs, filled by honorable American people. In the 
construction area, almost 90 percent are American workers, and there is 
nothing they won't do. They may not do something because they don't get 
enough pay or benefits or retirement, but the jobs themselves are noble 
contributions to America. They go out and build something--a wall, 
drywall, a roof on a house--and that is a lot better than some of these 
lawyers and other people who contribute very little, I submit, to the 
net economy.
  They talked about the 14 percent of the workers in food 
manufacturing, including animal processing. That includes chicken 
plants, slaughterhouses, and beef-processing plants. You have heard 
that we cannot get workers there. Pew Research says that illegals make 
up 27 percent of workers in that category. That is the highest sector, 
it looks like, according to this. What happened to their wages from 
2000 to 2005? They say they cannot get people to work in the chicken 
plants. That is what they say in Alabama--they cannot get workers and 
we might have a real problem without the illegal workers. If so, how 
did adjusted wages fall 1.4 percent during that period of time?
  He goes on to note that examining more closely the pattern within the 
2000 to 2005 period provides compelling evidence that illegal 
immigrants have been used deliberately to force down wages. In most 
industries that used illegal immigrants heavily, inflation-adjusted 
wages rose modestly during the first years of the current decade. Yet, 
soon after, they dropped significantly.
  What about the guy who wrote the textbook on economics, Robert 
Samuelson? I think he would be considered a liberal. Robert Samuelson 
produced an op-ed on May 17, 2006, this year. He deals directly with 
the question of immigration. This is what he said:

       The central problem is not illegal immigration, it is 
     undesirably high levels of poor and low-skilled immigrants, 
     whether legal or illegal. Immigrants are not all the same. An 
     engineer making $75,000 annually contributes more to the 
     American economy and society than a $20,000 laborer. On 
     average, an engineer will assimilate easily.

  He quotes favorably Professor Chiswick, and I just quoted from his 
testimony before the hearing. This guy has written books on economics. 
He quotes the same quote I just gave, I believe. I will not repeat 
that. He quotes Mr. Chiswick's comments concerning the fact that low-
skilled immigrants tend to pay less in taxes. They receive more 
benefits, such as income transfers, the earned-income tax credit, food 
stamps, public schooling, and publicly provided medical services. He 
quotes this from Mr. Chiswick, too: While low-skilled immigrant workers 
may raise the profit of their employers, they tend to have a negative 
impact on the well-being of the low-skilled, native-born population and 
on the native economy as a whole.
  Mr. Samuelson adds this:

       Hardly anyone is discussing these issues candidly. It is 
     politically inexpedient to do so. We can be a lawful society 
     and a welcoming society simultaneously, to use the 
     President's phrase, but we cannot be a welcoming society for 
     a limitless number of Latin America's poor, without seriously 
     compromising our own future and indeed the future of the many 
     Latinos already here. Yet, that is precisely what the 
     President and many Senators, Democrat and Republican, support 
     by enforcing large guestworker programs and an expansion of 
     today's legal system of visas. And in practice these 
     proposals would result in substantial increases in low-
     skilled immigrants.

  What are other countries doing? I will wrap up with these thoughts. 
What are other nations around the world doing as they consider their 
immigration policies?
  In Australia, immigrant applications are considered under either the 
general migration program, which includes skilled or migrant spouses 
and those sponsored by family members already settled in Australia, or 
the humanitarian refugee program. For fiscal 2004-2005, the Australian 
Government set a goal of 120,000 migrants, far less than our number; 
42,000 places for family members; 72,000 for skilled business migrants; 
and 13,000 for the humanitarian and refugee program--though actual 
arrivals were just over 123,000.
  Under the skilled migration program in Australia, applicants are 
given points for different criteria. In the fiscal year 2004, the pass 
mark for general skilled migration was 120 points. So they have a 
points based system. As it turned out that year, you had to have 120 or 
more or you were not approved. Points were awarded for age--lower age 
tends to be better--skill, English language ability, specialized 
skills, job offers in demand fields, or completion of an Australian 
university degree. If a foreign student comes here and finishes at the 
top of their class at Georgetown or the University of Alabama, they 
have to leave for at least 2 years. Somebody can come in here for a 
low-skilled job and get a green card the first day they come in. How 
silly is that? But that is what Australia does. They give 5 additional 
points for a capital investment in Australia of at least $100,000. 
Australian work experience, fluency in the Australian community 
language, and skilled occupations are given various points.
  What about Canada? They accept six major categories of immigrants: 
skilled and independent workers, business immigrants, provincial 
nominees, family class, international adoptions, and Quebec-sponsored 
immigrants. Refugees are also counted in immigration statistics. They 
do not have a country-based or worldwide quota, but they establish 
annual targets. In fiscal year 2004, approximately 236,000 people were 
accepted for permanent residence in Canada; 113,000 were skilled, 
62,000 family, 10,000 business, 6,000 provincial nominees, and 32,000 
refugees. There is a pretty good mix there. Far higher--over half of 
that number clearly are people with high skills, high education, and 
business capability.
  The strictest preference system is used in Canada for skilled workers 
and is based on a point system. Under the current system, applicants 
must obtain at least 67 out of 100 points and have at least 1 year of 
work experience within the past 10 years in a management occupation or 
in an occupation normally requiring university or technical training, 
as identified by the Canadian occupational classification system. 
Points are awarded for education, languages, employment experience, 
age, employment, and adaptability. So they have standards. In our 
system, people come in basically under entitlements. If you meet this 
standard, you get to come in regardless of your skill.
  What about France? Two days ago, France's lower House of Parliament 
approved a new immigration bill supported by one of the top Cabinet 
members. The Parliament approved a bill that would allow the country to 
selectively choose which foreigners can live and work in that country 
and would require that immigrants learn the French language. You know, 
they care about that French language. We need to care a little more 
about the English language.
  I remember when Chirac walked out of the European Union conference 
because a Frenchman, in speaking to the delegation, spoke to them in 
English. He was so offended that a Frenchman would speak English at an 
international conference, he left. That is a little bit much, I think, 
but I don't think there is anything wrong with a nation that is proud 
of its language and wanting to preserve it.
  So this French bill could make it easier for the country to screen 
out

[[Page 8801]]

poorly educated immigrants in favor of highly skilled workers.
  It would tighten restrictions under which immigrant workers can bring 
their families to France. That is chain migration. You get to bring 
your family no matter what skills they bring to the Nation. It would 
abolish the right of illegal immigrants to receive residency papers 
after living in France for 2 years. So in a way, it abolishes amnesty. 
It abolishes the right of illegal immigrants to receive residency 
papers, even after they have lived in the country for 10 years. The 
bill passed by 367 to 164 and will be debated in the French Senate next 
month.
  An article I happened to catch on the airplane the other day in the 
Economist, a London-based newspaper, said Americans are nativists, not 
internationalists. Why don't we talk about some of these EU countries 
that are supposed to be so progressive? This is what the Economist 
wrote on May 6 describing the background of France's immigration policy 
and the reason for their legislation:
  Until the mid-seventies, immigrants to France came to work. Since the 
law was tightened in 1974, the inflows have changed. Today, only 7,000 
permanent workers arrive each year, down from over 107,000 in the late 
sixties. Three-quarters of legal immigrants to France are family 
related. Not skill related, family related.

       France has a low proportion of skilled immigrants. France's 
     Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, argues ``that under the 
     pretext of protecting jobs at home, France has created a 
     system that let's in only those who have neither a job nor 
     any useful skills.''

  How about that?
  The Economist article goes on to describe an immigration bill that 
Mr. Sarkozy has put before the French Parliament this week, which 
addresses that very problem.

       Mr. Sarkozy's proposal, in many ways, simply follows the 
     practice of other countries, notably Australia, Canada, 
     Switzerland, as well as Britain and the Netherlands. In each 
     case, the policy is based on a recognition that there is no 
     such thing as zero immigration, and that a managed, skill-
     based immigration policy will not only control inflows, but 
     will also bring benefits to those countries.

  Madam President, we have focused on a lot of hot button issues, some 
of which are very important, but we have not given serious thought to 
the fundamentals of what we are doing here, and what impact it will 
have on our country. We are not giving any thought to what the 
Netherlands, what France, what Britain, what Canada, and what Australia 
are doing. We are not in any way following their model. In fact, we are 
ignoring the testimony of some of our Nation's most prestigious 
economists on those issues.
  As a result, we have a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation on 
the floor of the Senate. It should never ever become law, and it is a 
sad day when those who are supporting this legislation are reduced to 
quietly going around and suggesting: Don't worry about it being so bad, 
we just have to do something and maybe the House of Representatives 
will save us.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________