[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8926-8938]
[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 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the time is now reserved 
for the Senator from New Mexico to speak on the pending matter; is that 
correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about border 
security and the immigration reform bill. I have some very strong views 
on this issue because my home State shares its southern border with 
Mexico. Every day I hear stories about the problems of lax border 
security, a cause for concern among my constituents. They tell me 
directly the problems this causes. I am convinced we must do more to 
secure our borders than we have been doing. However, I am very pleased 
we are making headway. I hope, in the not too distant future, the 
American people will see the fruits of that headway. I hope I can 
explain in my time allotted how we are going to do more and what we are 
doing.
  Border security and immigration enforcement should be top priorities 
in our debate this week. Whether they are top priorities will influence 
my vote on any border and immigration package considered in the Senate.
  The first step to secure our border is more border security funding. 
I believe Senator Judd Gregg, as chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, understands this. Sometimes it has 
been difficult to let the American people hear what is going on, what 
he is doing in his subcommittee, what the Senate is doing when it 
follows his lead, and what happens when we finish work with the House 
on the bills that start out in his committee.
  He helped us provide $635 million for border security in fiscal year 
2005 in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. With his 
efforts, we provided more than $9 billion for border security and 
immigration enforcement in the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. He worked to include $1.9 billion for border 
security in the Senate fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill. Add that up, and one can understand that Congress 
is finally responding to the gigantic needs of making our international 
borders secure.
  The fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental funding I have alluded to 
includes such items as $100 million for sensors and surveillance 
technology; $120 million for new Border Patrol stations, checkpoints, 
and vehicle barriers; $80 million for Border Patrol vehicles; and $790 
million for border security helicopters and other air assets. Believe 
it or not, until recently, while we have talked a great deal about the 
Border Patrol and what they must do, they had helicopters from the 
Vietnam era. We have finally decided to buy them a new fleet of 
helicopters. After all these years of talking, we are finally doing 
something. Also, we included $50 million for an upgraded CBP 
communications system.
  Many Americans must be wondering, what have we been doing all these 
years in all these appropriations bills when we have talked so much? 
The truth is, we have done little. But we are doing more now.
  Second, we need more border security provisions as part of border 
security and immigration reform legislation. Many security provisions 
in the current border and immigration bill are good, but they are not 
enough. I have filed three amendments to the bill which I will discuss 
shortly. I understand and think once Senators have heard these 
amendments and the managers have had a chance to review them, they may 
be accepted.
  Lastly, we should try to address what to do with the millions of 
undocumented workers in America today. In March, I joined with a 
bipartisan group of Senators to support what has been called the Hagel-
Martinez compromise. I supported the compromise in hopes that it would 
allow a border security and immigration bill to move forward. I also 
supported it because, as I understand the bill, anyone who came to the 
United States illegally after January 7 of 2004 receives no special 
treatment; that is, those hundreds of thousands of people who have been 
running to the border or who have been taken to the border, who have 
purchased their way to the border in the last few months, will receive 
no special treatment. It is my understanding these individuals--that 
is, post-January 7, 2004 illegal entrants--would be subject to removal 
and deportation under existing immigration laws. The record needs to 
clearly reflect that.
  That means one group of people that Americans are wondering about 
will not receive any special privileges under this bill. They are sort 
of the Johnny-come-latelies who have run to the border thinking if they 
can get here quick enough they will be included in our immigration 
reform efforts. But it is my understanding that these individuals would 
be subject to removal and deportation under existing immigration law. I 
repeat that because I believe a number of Senators, on this side of the 
aisle at least, are indicating their support for this bill because they 
believe that is in the bill.
  As the most senior Senator representing a southwest border State, I 
would like to now discuss the amendments I have filed, which I believe 
make eminent sense and should be accepted by the Senate.
  The first is an amendment regarding Mexican cooperation. This 
amendment will require the Secretary of State to cooperate with Mexico 
to improve border security and to reduce border crime. The amendment is 
the result of a lot of hard work and is cosponsored by the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, who is very familiar 
with the border problems and the problems with Mexico.
  I would like to read that amendment because a reading of it does more 
than I could do by trying to summarize it. This amendment has as its 
purpose:

       To improve coordination between the United States and 
     Mexico regarding border security, criminal activity, circular 
     migration, and for other purposes.
       (a) Cooperation Regarding Border Security.--The Secretary 
     of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security and representatives of Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies that are involved in border security and 
     immigration enforcement efforts, shall work with the 
     appropriate officials from the Government of Mexico to 
     improve coordination between the United States and Mexico 
     regarding--
       (1) improved border security along the international border 
     between the United States and Mexico;
       (2) the reduction of human trafficking and smuggling 
     between the United States and Mexico;
       (3) the reduction of drug traffic and smuggling between the 
     United States and Mexico;
       (4) the reduction of gang membership in the United States 
     and Mexico;
       (5) the reduction of violence against women in the United 
     States and Mexico; and
       (6) the reduction of other violence and criminal activity.

  Next:


[[Page 8927]]

       (b) Cooperation Regarding Education On Immigration Laws.--
     The Secretary of State, in cooperation with other appropriate 
     Federal officials, shall work with the appropriate officials 
     from the Government of Mexico to carry out activities to 
     educate citizens and nationals of Mexico regarding 
     eligibility for status as a non-immigrant under United 
     States' law to ensure that the citizens and nationals are not 
     exploited while working in the United States.
       (c) Cooperation Regarding Circular Migration.--The 
     Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of 
     Labor and other appropriate Federal officials, shall work 
     with the appropriate officials from the Government of Mexico 
     to improve coordination between the United States and Mexico 
     to encourage circular migration, including assisting in the 
     development of economic opportunities and providing job 
     training for citizens and nationals in Mexico.
       (d) Annual Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     actions taken by the United States and Mexico under this 
     section.

  I believe this amendment is absolutely necessary, and I am very 
pleased Senator Dodd has joined me in supporting the amendment. I hope 
this will become part of this bill. My amendment will require an annual 
report which I think will push the leaders of Mexico to do the kinds of 
things that Americans expect these two countries to do. If we do not 
work together, we will have chaos. But with an agreement to work 
together on these issues, annually the people of both countries should 
know what is going on in terms of cooperation in the areas I have just 
spoken to.
  Now, sources estimate that as much as 85 percent of apprehended 
illegal immigrants are from Mexico. So we must work with Mexico to 
address the security of our southern border and the number of illegal 
entries from Mexico.
  My amendment calls on the Secretary of State to work with Mexico to 
improve border security; reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking, 
violence against women, and to inform Mexican nationals of the benefits 
of U.S. immigration. I have just read the amendment in its entirety on 
each of these subjects.
  Mexico must do its part in this initiative.
  On Sunday, there was an Associated Press article titled ``Mexico 
Works to Bar Non-Natives from Jobs.'' That article says--and I quote--

       Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant 
     unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican 
     migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies 
     ``xenophobic,'' Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone 
     born outside its territory.

  Mexico expects us to have much more humane, much more liberal, and 
much more constructive immigration policies in our Nation than it is 
willing to implement within its own borders. Can you imagine the uproar 
if we were to try to make our immigration policies anything like the 
policies of Mexico?
  In addition to changing its own immigration policies, Mexico has some 
other responsibilities, in my view. How many of its citizens, seeking 
economic sustenance, does Mexico expect us to take before it reforms 
its own economic policies?
  Estimates released over the weekend reveal that about 10 percent of 
the Mexican workforce now works not in its homeland but in the United 
States, and that 10 percent provides about 15 percent of the Mexican 
national income.
  We have an unusual, perhaps unique, situation along the border 
between the United States and Mexico. On no other border of this length 
in the world does such a disparity exist between the economic prowess 
and programs of the two nations sharing such a border.
  Here is America, the leading economy in the world, bordered for 
almost 2,000 miles by a nation that persists in economic policies that 
have failed to provide sufficient jobs or salaries for much of its 
people. No similar situation exists anywhere on the globe. So we have a 
unique challenge that is attendant to this unique situation.
  That challenge needs to be met not just by the United States, but by 
Mexico, too. They must join us in an effort to solve this challenge. 
Economic reform, greater emphasis on the private economy, and 
modernizing more of its facilities remain great challenges that Mexico 
must face.
  We are forced to tighten our borders not because we are a mean 
nation, but because the economy to the south of us is driving millions 
to our country's economy. I believe my amendment will provide for more 
cooperation between the United States and Mexico. As a result, I 
believe our border could be more secure.
  I have another amendment that has to do with Federal judges. I note 
the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, is on the 
Senate floor, and her state is impacted by this amendment. It has to do 
with the inadequate number of Federal judges that is going to result 
when this new law is put into effect. The U.S. district courts in the 
southwest are overly burdened with immigration caseloads. We must have 
additional judges, as recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference.
  Let me explain. While immigration cases typically go before 
immigration judges, repeat offenders can be charged with felonies and 
tried in Federal district court. As a result, four of our district 
courts have immigration caseloads that total more than 50 percent of 
their total criminal filings.
  The fiscal year 2004 immigration caseload for the Southern District 
of Texas totaled 3,668 filings. This is more than 65 percent of the 
district's 5,599 criminal filings.
  The District Court for Arizona had 2,404 immigration filings, more 
than 59 percent of the district's 4,007 criminal filings.
  The Southern District of California had 2,206 immigration filings. 
That is more than 64 percent of its total 3,400 criminal filings.
  The district court for my home State of New Mexico had 1,502 
immigration filings. That is more than 60 percent of its total of 2,497 
criminal filings.
  I am glad we are improving border security and interior enforcement 
with this legislation. But, obviously, we must also provide the 
adequate machinery to go along with that, and that means enough Federal 
judges to handle the caseload that will be generated.
  In short, if we put more Border Patrol agents and immigration 
personnel on the southwestern border, we need to provide more resources 
to the other Federal agencies that also deal with immigration.
  The immigration bill recognizes this to some degree by calling for 
more DHS and DOJ attorneys, public defenders, and immigration judges. 
But we must add new district judges necessary to hear the cases of 
repeat immigration law violators. Failure to do that means we will 
create even more of an unworkable situation that already involves mass 
arraignments and sentencings.
  As we work on this bill to provide more resources to the Departments 
of Homeland Security and Justice, we must also address related needs, 
so I am proud to offer this amendment with Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and 
Hutchison.
  I also address a related need for more deputy marshals in an 
amendment. We have a dramatic shortage of deputy marshals to handle the 
increased caseload that will be associated with repeat immigration law 
violators. My third amendment, offered with Senators Bingaman, Kyl, 
Cornyn, and Hutchison, awaits consideration. It adds 50 new deputy 
marshals each year for 5 years.
  Lastly, I would just comment on a very important part of the bill, 
the land port-of-entry improvements sections. Those provisions are 
based on legislation I authored in the 108th Congress with Senator 
Dorgan and which 13 other border state Senators cosponsored.
  These provisions address the needs of our land ports of entry.
  I am grateful that the managers of the bill have adopted that 
legislation as part of their bill. These sections are critical because 
neither American border has undergone a comprehensive infrastructure 
overhaul since Senator DeConcini, a Senator from Arizona, and I put 
forth an effort to modernize the southwest border 20 years ago. We have 
done nothing comprehensive since 1986 on either the north or south 
international border. A great deal has changed since then, including 
the passage of legislation to improve security of our airports and 
seaports, following September 11, 2001.

[[Page 8928]]

  I appreciate Chairman Specter including my legislation to identify 
port-of-entry infrastructure and technology improvement projects, 
prioritize and implement these projects based on need, require a plan 
to assess the vulnerabilities of each of the ports of entry located on 
the northern and southern borders of our great Nation, implement a 
technology demonstration program to evaluate new ports of entry 
technologies, and provide training necessary for personnel who must 
implement these new technologies. I believe these provisions are 
essential for border security. I am glad and appreciative that they are 
in the bill.
  Mr. President, we must secure our international borders. I believe 
with Chairman Gregg's leadership on the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee and strong border security provisions in 
this bill, we can do just that.
  I thank the Chair for the time granted me to express my views and to 
the Senators who have listened. Certainly, I hope what I have said will 
have an impact to some extent on this bill and that the amendments that 
have not yet been adopted, of which I have spoken, will, before we come 
to final closure, become part of this great effort to secure our 
borders, provide for an orderly transition for those who have come to 
our country illegally, and create orderly rules for future guest 
workers. This is important so the relationships between America and 
other countries can move forward, and so our country, which is going to 
need immigrants in the future, can look forward to that in an orderly 
manner based on a border that is secure and an agreement between the 
U.S. and Mexico that is going to be carried out and rendered operative.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4087

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico for his thoughtful comments on the bill. I have the 
privilege of serving as a member of the Energy Committee, of which he 
is chairman. It has been a pleasure for me to serve under his 
chairmanship. I thank him for those comments.
  I come to the floor to discuss an amendment, SA 4087, which I filed 
this morning. It is entitled ``To modify the Conditions Under Which 
Aliens Who Are Unlawfully Present in the United States Are Granted 
Legal Status.'' I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as 
a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for 
the amendment from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and over 115 
groups and organizations from around the country be printed in the 
Record.
  There, being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   Congress of the


                                                United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2006.
       Dear Senator: We write to express our strong support of the 
     Feinstein amendment to S. 2611 and ask you to vote for it 
     when considered on the Senate floor.
       The Feinstein ``orange card'' amendment would simplify the 
     implementation of the legalization program considerably, 
     creating a uniform and tough path to permanency for all hard-
     working undocumented immigrants living in the United States--
     without providing them an automatic pardon or amnesty.
       To qualify, undocumented individuals would be required to 
     have been physically present in the United States and working 
     by January 1, 2006. They would have to pay a $2000 fine and 
     back taxes, learn English and American civics, and pass 
     extensive criminal and security background check. After 
     working for at least 6 years, orange card holders could apply 
     for legal permanent residence, but only after all current 
     applicants for a green card are adjudicated.
       S. 2611, as currently drafted, creates a complicated, 
     three-tiered process that could undermine the success of the 
     legalization program. We fear that without amendment, the 
     legalization program will be costly and difficult to 
     administer, prone to widespread fraud and inherently unfair 
     to those that it would, perhaps even inadvertently, exclude.
       It is our position that for a comprehensive approach to 
     work, immigration reform must be tough and enforceable and 
     bring as many undocumented individuals out of the shadows as 
     possible. If reform fails to do this, we will be wasting an 
     important and historic opportunity to get at the root of the 
     problem with our immigration policy. Rather than fixing our 
     broken system once and for all, S. 2611 could postpone our 
     ability to get control of migration flows into our country 
     and secure our homeland.
       The Feinstein amendment would strengthen the effectiveness 
     and fairness of S. 2611, and is, therefore, in the best 
     interests of all Americans. We urge you to vote yes on the 
     Feinstein amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Grace Flores Napolitano,
       Chair, Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).
     Luis V. Gutierrez,
       Chair, CHC Immigration Task Force.
                                  ____

                                       Coalition for Comprehensive


                                           Immigration Reform.

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, 
     we are writing to express our strong support for the 
     Feinstein ``Orange Card'' amendment which replaces the three-
     tiered treatment of undocumented immigrants in S. 2611 with 
     one simple process that applies to undocumented immigrants 
     who lived in the U.S. on January 1, 2006 and meet other 
     strict requirements including paying taxes, learning English, 
     passing criminal and security background checks, and paying a 
     $2000 fine.
       Under the Feinstein amendment Orange Card holders may 
     become lawful permanent residents when all current applicants 
     for green cards have been received from them (estimated to be 
     6 years), or 8 years after the bill becomes law, whichever is 
     earlier. This means that they are essentially ``in line'' 
     behind those who are currently awaiting visas through our 
     legal immigration system. Orange Card holders must check in 
     each year with the government and show that they continue to 
     meet all of the requirements listed above.
       There are numerous other important advantages of the 
     Feinstein Orange Card amendment including: one simple process 
     to legalize qualifying undocumented immigrants who entered 
     the U.S. before January 1, 2006; equal treatment of all 
     family members; and ease of administration with less 
     potential for fraud. Moreover, the amendment increases the 
     effectiveness of comprehensive immigration reform by 
     maximizing the extent to which undocumented immigrants 
     currently in the United States can access a path to U.S. 
     citizenship.
       We are deeply concerned that S. 2611 will exclude too many 
     immigrants who are hard working, law abiding, and making 
     important contributions to this country. We believe the best 
     way to reform the law is to maximize the number of immigrants 
     who legalize and to create a process that works. We urge you 
     to recognize the many contributions that these immigrants 
     make to our country and provide a path to citizenship which 
     is consistent with the spirit of S. 2611 in that immigrants 
     would have to meet the same requirements for working paying 
     taxes, learning English, and waiting in line behind others 
     but without creating unnecessary and cumbersome parallel 
     processes which will be difficult to administer and will 
     leave too many behind.
       We strongly support the Feinstein Orange Card amendment and 
     urge you to support it.
           Sincerely,
       ACORN; Aceramiento Hispano de Carolina del Sur; The 
     American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; American Friends 
     Service Committee, Miami; Asian American Justice Center; 
     Asian Americans for Equality; Association of Mexicans in 
     North Carolina (AMEXCAN); CASA of Maryland, Inc.; Center for 
     Community Change; The Center for Justice, Peace and the 
     Environment; Center for Social Advocacy; Central American 
     Resource Center/CARECEN-L.A.; Centro Campesino Inc.; 
     Coalition for Asian American Children and Families (CACF); 
     Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles 
     (CHIRLA); Coalition for New South Carolinians; Community 
     Wellness Partnership of Pomona; Dignity Through Dialogue and 
     Education; Eastern Pennsylvania Conference of the United 
     Methodist Church; El Centro Hispanoamericano; El Centro, 
     Inc.; Empire Justice Center; En Camino, Diocese of Toledo; 
     FIRM (Fair Immigration Reform Movement); Family & Children's 
     Service; Fanm Ayisyen Nan Miyami/Haitian Women of Miami, 
     Inc.; The Farmworker Association of Florida Inc.; Farmworkers 
     Association of Florida; Florida Immigrant Coalition; Fuerza 
     Latina; Fundacion Salvadorena de la Florida; Georgia 
     Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO); Guatemalan 
     Unity Information Agency; Haitian Women of Miami; HIAS and 
     Council Migration Service of Philadelphia; Heartland 
     Alliance; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS); Hispanic 
     American Association; Hispanic Coalition, Miami; Hispanic 
     Federation; Hispanic Women's Organization of Arkansas; Holy 
     Redeemer Lutheran Church, San Jose, CA; ISAIAH, Twin Cities 
     and St. Cloud Regions, MN; Illinois Coalition for Immigration 
     and Refugee Rights; Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant 
     Rights, California; Interfaith Coalition

[[Page 8929]]

     for Worker Justice of South Central Wisconsin (ICWJ); Intl. 
     Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing 
     Iron Workers, Miami; International Immigrants Foundation; 
     International Institute of Rhode Island; Institute of the 
     Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Irish American Unity 
     Conference; Irish Immigration Pastoral Center, San Francisco; 
     Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform; Korean American Resource 
     and Cultural Center, Chicago, IL; Korean Resource Center, Los 
     Angeles, CA; JUNTOS;
       Joseph Law Firm, PC; LULAC; Labor Council for Latin 
     American Advancement, LCLAA; Latin American Immigrants 
     Federation; Latin American Integration Center, New York City; 
     Latino and Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel Valley and 
     Pomona Valley; Latino Leadership, Inc.; Latinos en Accion de 
     CCI, a chapter of Iowa Citizens For Community Improvement; 
     Law Office of Kimberly Salinas; League of Rural Voters; 
     MALDEF; Make the Road by Walking; Mary's Center for Maternal 
     and Child Care; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy 
     Coalition (MIRA); Medical Mission Sisters' Alliance for 
     Justice; Michigan Organizing Project; Minnesota Immigrant 
     Freedom Network; The Multi-Cultural Alliance of Prince 
     George's County Inc.; Nashville Area Hispanic Chamber of 
     Commerce; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good 
     Shepherd; National Alliance of Latin American & Caribbean 
     Communities (NALACC); National Capital Immigration Coalition 
     (NCIC); National Council of La Raza; National Farm Worker 
     Ministry (NFWM); National Immigration Forum; National Korean 
     American Service & Education Consortium, Los Angeles, CA; 
     Nationalities Service Center; Nebraska Appleseed Center for 
     Law in the Public Interest; Neighbors Helping Neighbors; 
     NETWORK--A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; New York 
     Immigration Coalition; ONE Lowell, Lowell, MA; Pennsylvania 
     ACORN; People For the American Way (PFAW); Pineros y 
     Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN); Presbyterian Church 
     (USA), Washington Office; Project HOPE; Project for Pride in 
     Living; Rockland Immigration Coalition; Rural Coalition/
     Coalicion Rural; Service Employees International Union 
     (SEIU); SEIU Florida Healthcare Union; SEIU Local 32BJ; 
     Seattle Irish Immigrant Support Group; Society of Jesus, New 
     York Province; South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow; 
     Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC); UN 
     DIA (United Dubuque Immigrant Alliance); UNITE HERE! U.S. 
     Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI); Unite for 
     Dignity for Immigrant Workers Rights, Inc.; United Farm 
     Workers, Miami; United Food and Commercial Workers; United 
     Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; 
     Virginia Justice Center for Farm and Immigrant Workers; We 
     Count!; Westchester Hispanic Coalition; Westside Community 
     Action Network Center (Westside CAN Center); The Workmen's 
     Circle/Arbeter Ring; YKASEC--Empowering the Korean American 
     Community, New York, NY; Yee & Durkin, LLP.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I make these remarks as a 13\1/2\-year 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Immigration 
Subcommittee. I also come from a State which is very large in terms of 
immigrants, both legal and illegal, and a State which is a dynamic 
economic engine for our country. I strongly believe that any 
comprehensive immigration bill must address three issues: a 
strengthening of our borders so that they are safe, effective, strong; 
a limited guest worker program and an overhaul of the visa system; and 
most importantly, I believe, the creation of a pathway to earned 
legalization for the large number of people, estimated at between 10 
and 12 million, who live today invisibly in our Nation and who have 
become a critical part of the American workplace and on whom employers 
depend to do work Americans will simply not do.
  I respond to our analysis of the Hagel-Martinez amendment, and my 
remarks are in two parts. The first part will be to propose an 
alternative to Hagel-Martinez. The second part will be a critique on 
what I see are substantial flaws in the Hagel-Martinez amendment.
  I first thank both Senators Hagel and Martinez. They have done a 
great service to the Senate and our country by trying to come up with a 
compromise solution to what is a major problem facing our Nation. 
Nonetheless, I find significant structural and practical faults and 
have tried to correct those with the proposal I have just introduced 
and will be speaking on now.
  I am introducing what is called an orange card amendment. This 
amendment would streamline the process for earned legalization. It 
would create a more workable and practical program and dedicate the 
necessary dollars to cover its costs of administration. This amendment 
builds on the compromises already agreed to under McCain-Kennedy and 
Hagel-Martinez, and it incorporates the amendments already adopted on 
the Senate floor. But it eliminates what I see as an unworkable three-
tiered program under Hagel-Martinez.
  This amendment only deals with earned legalization. It does not 
change any of the border security provisions, the guest worker program, 
or any other part of this bill. Therefore, this amendment would 
essentially eliminate the program created by Hagel-Martinez and replace 
it with the orange card program I am now going to explain.
  Under this amendment, all undocumented aliens who are in the United 
States as of January 1, 2006, would immediately register a preliminary 
application with the Department of Homeland Security. At the time of 
the registration, they would also submit fingerprints at the U.S. 
Customs and Immigration Service's facility so that criminal and 
national security background checks could commence immediately. That is 
the first step. It would also create a more precise registration system 
that would allow the immediate inflow of information into the 
Department of Homeland Security to be processed electronically, which 
the Hagel-Martinez amendment does not, and which is what we have been 
told is essential to ensuring that DHS can handle this new workload. It 
would give the Department time to vet the application through a 
thorough and orderly process. This would be the first step.
  Under the second step, petitioners would submit a full application 
for an orange card in person by providing the necessary documents to 
demonstrate their work history and their presence in the United States. 
Their application would also require that they pass a criminal and 
national security background check that would be carried out based on 
the information and fingerprints from the preapplication; they 
demonstrate an understanding of English and U.S. history and 
Government, as required when someone applies for their citizenship; 
they have paid their back taxes; and they would pay a $2,000 fine. The 
money from this fine would be used to cover the costs of administering 
the program. These requirements are the second step of what is required 
to earn an orange card. They also comply with previous amendments 
passed on the floor of the Senate during this debate.
  If the application is approved, each individual would be issued what 
I call an orange card. I selected orange because the color had no 
connotation I could think of. This card would be encrypted with a 
machine-readable electronic identification strip that is unique to that 
individual. The card itself would contain biometric identifiers, anti-
counterfeiting security features, and an assigned number that would 
place that individual at the end of the current line to apply for a 
green card. The number would correspond to the length of time that the 
petitioner has been in the United States so that those who have been 
here the longest would be the first to follow those currently waiting 
to receive a green card. That is the 3.3 million people outside of the 
country awaiting a green card. These cards would go in order following 
the expunging of that line.
  The issuance of an orange card would allow individuals to remain in 
the United States legally and work, as well as travel in and out of the 
country. It would become their fraud-proof identifier, complete with a 
photo and fingerprints. This is the second step to earning 
legalization.
  The third step is that on an annual basis, each individual who 
applies for an orange card would submit to DHS documentation either 
electronically or by mail that shows what they have been doing in that 
year, the work they have carried out, that they have, in fact, paid 
their taxes that year, and whether they have been convicted of any 
crime during that year, either through court documents or an 
attestation, and they would pay a $50 processing fee. These three 
steps, plus the

[[Page 8930]]

required wait at the back of the green card line, clearly indicates 
that this is not an amnesty program.
  The legalization in the orange card must be earned, and it must be 
earned over a substantial period of time. It would be available to all 
who are here from January of this year.
  This language will ensure that there are enough funds to run the 
program because there is a $2,000 fine that would be dedicated to 
paying for the administration of the program and a $50 annual 
processing fee. For example, assuming there are between 10 and 20 
million undocumented aliens already in the United States who would have 
to pay a $2,000 fine, if 10 million came forward, that alone would 
raise $20 billion. So the program would be covered. By including this 
language, this amendment protects against creating a new burden on 
taxpayers and ensures that the Federal Government has the necessary 
money to make the program work.
  Another safeguard contained in the amendment is the annual reporting 
requirement. By including this process, this amendment will ensure that 
individuals who apply to this program remain productive and hard-
working members of their communities. The amendment requires that 
individuals must work for at least 6 years before they may adjust their 
status. Realistically, from what we know about the number of green card 
petitioners legally waiting in other countries for their green card, it 
is much more likely that they would have to wait a longer time before 
the process is completed. Again, this is not amnesty. It is a clear 
path to an earned legalization. These prospective reporting 
requirements ensure that only individuals who deserve to adjust their 
status and continue to be productive members of their communities may 
become legal permanent residents.
  In addition, by focusing on prospective requirements, this amendment 
streamlines the process and helps avoid the bureaucratic morass that 
has been created other times when Congress has acted. If we don't get 
this right, we will end up repeating mistakes of the past. We will 
simply create new incentives for illegal immigration, and we will 
enhance the problems our country now faces in tracking who is coming 
and going across our borders.
  Remember, it is estimated that about one-third of those who receive 
visas do not leave the United States when their visas expire. So the 
problem is not only people coming across the border; the problem is 
also people misusing their visas. In 2004, there were just over 30 
million visas issued. That is an unbelievable amount, but it is true. 
That means there could be up to 10 million people who overstayed their 
visas and remained in the United States. Now, of course, most of them 
probably didn't stay here permanently. But it is clear from these 
statistics that our visa program has a serious problem when it comes to 
enforceability.
  I strongly believe we must find an orderly way to allow those already 
here, many of whom have families, strong community ties, and some who 
have U.S. citizen children, to earn legalization over a substantial 
period of time. And virtually every poll I have seen has shown that 
over 70 percent of the American people agree. They know there are many 
people who are critical parts of our workforce. They work in 
agriculture, in landscaping, in housing, in the service industry, in 
the hotel industry, and they work all throughout our economy. I know 
some who not only have children, but their children are excelling. They 
not only live here, but they own homes, pay taxes, and they work hard. 
This is important so that this population can live fully productive 
lives without being subject to abuse or exploitation, and so that 
American commerce has the workforce that is necessary for agriculture, 
as well as many other industries.
  During consideration of this bill in the Judiciary Committee, of 
which you are a distinguished member, Mr. President, we adopted an 
amendment referred to as the McCain-Kennedy program that was offered by 
Senator Graham. This amendment created an earned legalization program 
that would also set up a number of hurdles individuals must pass 
through in order to earn their legalization. The Graham amendment was 
adopted by a bipartisan vote of 12 to 5 and was in the base bill 
previously considered by the Senate.
  However, since that time, a new program was created and replaced 
McCain-Kennedy in the underlying bill. That program is known as the 
Hagel-Martinez compromise. It is important to point out that neither 
this body nor the Judiciary Committee has voted to adopt the three-
tiered system which the Hagel-Martinez compromise proposes and which is 
now before this body.
  Hagel-Martinez would treat people differently, depending on how long 
they have been in the United States. It is estimated that 6.7 million 
have been in the United States for more than 5 years; 1.6 million, less 
than 2 years; and 2.8 million, 2 to 5 years. The source of the numbers 
is the Pew Current Population Survey. So we have three tiers--more than 
5 years, 2 to 5 years, and less than 2 years.
  After an examination of the Hagel-Martinez language, I have come to 
believe that the three-tiered system is unworkable, that it would 
create a bureaucratic nightmare and it would lead to substantial fraud. 
My staff has consulted with current and former Government staff who 
have expressed serious concerns with the practical implications of how 
such a program could be implemented.
  We already know the Department of Homeland Security is overburdened. 
Just for a moment, look at the problems they face today. Our current 
system is running neither efficiently nor effectively, and we all know 
that. Let me just put on the table a few examples.
  Currently, the Department of Homeland Security is struggling to 
implement a fully functioning US-VISIT Program to monitor those who are 
entering and exiting our country. This system of checking people in and 
out with a biometric card is only half completed. It is many years 
overdue.
  The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services struggles with 
enormous backlogs in applications from those who come to this country 
and attempt to adjust their status legally. FBI background checks often 
take between 1 or 2 years to process fingerprints. Naturalization lines 
are so long, it can take a person years and sometimes even decades to 
get through the system. How on Earth is DHS going to be able to handle 
a new program which cannot be run electronically and which will require 
massive documentation and enormous staff time?
  What we have done is provided a structure for an electronic handling 
of the data submitted by the individuals, the electronic verification 
of the data, the checking out of this data. Hagel-Martinez creates a 
tiered system where those here less than 2 years are subject to 
deportation and those here from 2 to 5 years must return to their 
country and get themselves somehow into a guest worker program. It is 
estimated that 1.6 million people have been here for 2 years or less, 
and approximately 2.8 million have been here from 2 to 5 years. So that 
is 4.4 million people who are going to be asked to leave the country 
one way or another. Do you believe they will? History and reality shows 
that they will not. How will the Government find all of them and deport 
those who do not leave voluntarily? And if they are found and deported, 
what would lead us to believe they will not come right back to join 
their families and return to their jobs?
  Secondly, individuals who have been here just under 2 or 5 years will 
inevitably try to argue they qualify for a higher tier. I think it is 
only realistic to expect that these tiers will become a breeding ground 
for flawed, fraudulent documents, and true evaluations will be 
virtually impossible to make. How on Earth are DHS personnel going to 
be able to verify when an individual entered the country to determine 
the less than 2 years or the 2- to 5-year tier?
  When it comes to the second tier, 2 to 5 years, and the deferred 
mandatory departure program of Hagel-Martinez, I am concerned about how 
this process is going to function and who is going to follow through 
with executing its requirements. How is the Department of

[[Page 8931]]

Homeland Security going to find these people who have been here 2 to 5 
years and ensure that they actually leave the United States? Does 
anyone really expect that a father or a mother will voluntarily leave 
their families and go outside the country for this so-called touchback? 
What is the incentive for people who have already been living in the 
United States to come forward and go through this process?
  In order to understand why I have these questions, I think it is 
important for everyone to understand how the deferred mandatory 
departure program of Hagel-Martinez is supposed to work. There has been 
a lot of discussion about the program, but when you read the fine print 
of the bill language, there are serious questions and consequences that 
need to be better understood.
  My understanding of the bill language is that a person who falls into 
this second tier, who has been here for 2 to 5 years, may remain in the 
United States legally for up to 3 years and then they must leave the 
country and find a legal program through which they may reenter the 
United States. This is the critical flaw in Hagel-Martinez. People will 
not risk leaving their families or their jobs in the hopes that once 
they leave the United States they will be able to reenter through a 
visa program, whether that be the new H-2C guest worker program or 
another visa program.
  To compound this problem but ostensibly to make it possible, Hagel-
Martinez waives the 200,000 visa cap that we just reduced from 325,000 
in the Bingaman-Feinstein amendment on the H-2C program. In doing that, 
this would create a larger bureaucratic hurdle, a difficult standard of 
proof, and a complete decimation of the limits on the guest worker 
program. Instead of a new guest worker program--H-2C--that will bring 
in 200,000 people a year, we would be, in effect, creating a guest 
worker program that is supposed to accommodate 2.8 million people, plus 
another 200,000 people annually. So through this deferred mandatory 
departure, the Congress creates a guest worker program that will need 
to accommodate over 3 million people.
  But putting all that aside, assuming this was actually doable, there 
are other problems. For instance, the H-2C guest worker visa only lasts 
a maximum of 6 years. So every person will quickly see that this is not 
an automatic path to earn their legalization, and they will be forced 
out of the country at the end of the 6 years. Will they go? I doubt it. 
I think you will have a new illegal immigrant problem.
  The path to legalization has been modified through the amendment 
process on this floor, and now an H-2C worker will likely need their 
employer to petition for a green card on their behalf. An employer has 
to petition for it, meaning that, for 2 million people, their only hope 
to continue to live in the United States is through the grace of an 
employer. I think this places an undue burden on an employer, and it 
leaves workers vulnerable to exploitation from bad employers.
  Also, H-2C workers, their spouses, and their children are not allowed 
to remain in the United States if the worker fails to work for an 
approved employer for more than 60 consecutive at any time during the 6 
years, with no exception for health problems or injuries. This will 
mean that if an individual does become injured or ill, they become 
deportable. In addition, all rights to administrative or judicial 
review of any future removal actions, are eliminated. Combined, in my 
view, these provisions are ill-advised. They make individuals extremely 
vulnerable to abuse, they put high burdens on employers, and they open 
the situation up to exploitation.
  That leaves me to wonder, with these shortcomings, why would anyone 
in these categories participate in this program?
  Why would someone who is already living here clandestinely, working, 
and already active in their community voluntarily come forward and 
register with the Department of Homeland Security and leave the United 
States to join this program? With these risks and pitfalls, my 
experience in California and my 13\1/2\ years on the Immigration 
Subcommittee tells me they won't. At worst, I fear we are creating an 
incentive for individuals to continue living under an illegal status, 
and I don't know how that benefits this Nation, the people of our 
Nation, the employers, or the people who are here today in an 
undocumented status. At best, we are creating a new burden on DHS to 
locate and monitor millions of people who are clandestinely integrated 
into the fabric of our Nation today.
  In addition, the Hispanic National Bar Association specifically 
criticized this second tier, and it wrote this: We are particularly 
concerned that requiring individuals in the [second tier] to leave this 
country in order to fully legalize their status will result in severe 
disruptions for families, workers, and employers . . . We [also] 
believe that creating an additional class of undocumented immigrants 
will lead to greater administrative burdens as it will require the 
implementation of two different paths to legalization.
  I think that is a very true statement.
  Let me speak about the third tier for those who have been here for 
less than 2 years because according to Hagel-Martinez, they must all be 
deported. This means that DHS would be required to find and deport 2 
million people. That is the bill we are going to pass--2 million, find 
them, deport them. How is that going to get done? Even President Bush 
acknowledged that such a large-scale deportation program is unworkable 
when he said this:

       It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of 
     people and send them across the border.

  The only method to compel compliance with Hagel-Martinez is through 
employer sanctions, and we know from experience over dozens of years 
that employer sanctions do not work.
  In fiscal year 2004, only 46 employers were convicted of illegal 
immigrant employment--46 employers--out of the tens of thousands of 
employers whom we know employ the undocumented, and the number of 
employer sanctions cases resulting in fines has declined from a peak of 
nearly 900 under President Clinton to only 124 in fiscal year 2003. Not 
to mention even when employers are raided and then sanctioned, there is 
a backlash from the public.
  So I am one who doesn't believe it is realistic to assume that, 
first, the Department of Homeland Security is going to be able to go 
out and deport 2 million people; and then secondly, to ensure that the 
other 2.8 million leave to go back for the touchback program.
  So because of these concerns about the workability, the practicality, 
and the real-world impact of such a three-tiered system, I believe we 
have to create a much more efficient process, and I believe the orange 
card process is the best way to ensure that our policy goals in 
creating a path to legalization can be implemented and realized.
  The structural flaws of Hagel-Martinez must be corrected, and this 
amendment essentially corrects them. It is workable, it is practical, 
it does not reward illegal immigration, but it creates a pathway for 
everyone in this country as of the beginning of this year to show over 
a substantial period of time annually that they have been and will 
continue to be a responsible and productive member of American society. 
It puts the burden on them to go in, to petition, to submit their 
fingerprints, to submit their photographs, and to wait for those to be 
checked out before they would be issued the orange card.
  Once you have this orange card then you know you are legal. You can 
come in and out. It has the biometric identifiers. It is fraudproof. 
And the orange card has the additional ability of being numbered, so 
you also know that the lower numbers are going to people who have been 
here for the 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years that we know people, in fact, 
have been in this country. It is done in a way that can be carried out 
electronically, and I think that is part of the strength of the 
program.
  Here we have a pathway that requires an individual to show over a 
substantial period of time that they have been and will continue to be 
a responsible and productive member of American society and to do so 
with certain tangible deeds: the tangible deed of work,

[[Page 8932]]

the tangible deed of living a legal life, the tangible deed of paying 
back taxes, the tangible deed of learning to speak English. This is not 
amnesty. Nothing happens immediately. Amnesty is the immediate 
transition of someone from an illegal status to a legal status. If an 
individual cannot demonstrate these things, they will not receive a 
green card at the end of this long pathway, and then at that time they 
are deportable.
  If a bipartisan majority agrees that an earned legalization program 
is a critical part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, then the 
program must work on the streets and it must be carefully structured so 
that it can be carried out. I believe this program can be carried out, 
and I am sorry to say that as currently structured, I do not believe 
the three-tiered process of Hagel-Martinez can or will be carried out.
  This is an amendment on which I hope we will vote. It is at the desk. 
I ask my colleagues to look at it, study it, and if they have 
modifications--this is a complicated issue--if they have modifications 
they would like to see, please bring these to us because we hope there 
will be a vote in the next couple of days.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been a Member of the Senate, now 
in my 26th year, and one of the issues that I have some regret about is 
voting for amnesty in the 1986 immigration bill, the last time that we 
had amnesty for people who illegally came to our country.
  Another regret I have that has followed on is that probably we have 
not done enough to keep on top of our laws of anticipating when there 
was labor or workers needed from outside the country to come into our 
country, and we haven't provided then maybe the workers that we need 
when there aren't enough Americans to fill various jobs. That could be 
laborers in the case of construction, it could be service workers in 
the case of hotels, it could be engineers, if we don't educate enough 
engineers. And probably those two regrets I have relate to how I feel 
about the present legislation before the Senate.
  I have looked back at my vote for amnesty, and I have tried to recall 
as best I can 20 years back. But it seems to me that I was convinced at 
that time that if we had amnesty along with worker verification, along 
with sanctions against workers, which I think was set in the law with a 
$10,000 fine, we would solve all of our illegal immigration problems.
  Well, at that particular time, we did not predict and foresee the 
development of an industry of fraudulent documentmaking, so that if I 
came to this country illegally and I went in to get a job and I showed 
a passport that looked like the real thing but was fraudulent, and the 
employer didn't see the difference and they hired me, then he was 
absolved of any responsibility for willfully hiring a person illegally 
in this country. And amnesty was supposed to work with that to legalize 
1 million people who were illegally in the country at that particular 
time.
  So looking back now 20 years, it seems as though we winked at abuse 
of the law, and it gives credibility to people who think they can avoid 
the law because there is never going to be a penalty for it. So what 
was a 1 million-person problem in 1986, today the number is up to a 12 
million-person problem, people coming into this country illegally.
  So I have some apologies to the people of this country because I made 
a judgment that amnesty in 1986 would solve our problems, and ignoring 
illegality, I find, has encouraged further illegality, and we have 12 
million people now in the country illegally.
  Then I wonder whether, now that I am 72 years old, 20 years down the 
road when my successor is in office will they be dealing with an 
illegal alien problem of 25 million. Another thing I learned from 1986 
was that we allowed family members of people who were here illegally to 
then come to the head of the line, and instead of legalizing 1 million 
people, we probably made it possible for 3 million people to be in this 
country as opposed to waiting to come in under the normal process. 
Then, the other part of it, to repeat, is maybe if we had been a little 
more on top of the employment situation in the United States in recent 
years, we would have changed our laws so that more people could come 
legally to this country to work. Having learned from those lessons--
obviously I have been burned once on the issue of amnesty--I am not 
sure I want to be burned twice on the issue of amnesty.
  Of course, at this point, with 1 more week to go in the debate on 
this bill and many amendments, I don't know, there might be a bill I 
can vote for. But I don't think I am prepared to vote for amnesty 
again. I am not prepared to vote for amnesty again and then create a 
problem 20 years down the road for our successors to have yet a bigger 
problem.
  I think we have learned in America that we are a nation of the rule 
of law and that we ought to enforce the law. I think we made a mistake 
by ignoring illegality in 1986 because it encouraged further 
illegality. It is a little bit like getting crime under control in New 
York City. When Mayor Giuliani first came into office, he decided that 
the way to get at big crime was not to allow the petty crime. He went 
to work concentrating on people who were abusing the law even in a 
minimal sense. Soon it made an impact that he was going to be tough on 
crime, and pretty soon you found a great reduction in major crime. If 
we start enforcing our immigration laws and if at the same time we have 
a realistic law for people to legally come to this country, then maybe 
we will be able to get the sovereignty of our Nation to what it is 
supposed to be, and that is at least the controlling of our borders.
  One of the things I wish to make clear is that there is a guest 
worker program used in place of amnesty. I understood previous speakers 
to say you can earn your way to legality, you can earn your way to 
citizenship. There are a lot of people who commit crimes who never get 
a chance to work their way out of that crime. It probably signals to 
people in other lands a softness of our concern about whether people 
come here obeying our laws and sends a signal that it is OK to 
disregard our laws. So a guest worker program that is used to cover up 
amnesty I can't buy into.
  There are proposals connected with this bill to allow people to come 
here legally to work, to have a job and to have papers when they cross 
the border to come into our country to work. We are expanding some of 
those provisions for people to legally come to this country, and we are 
inviting people to come in as guest workers.
  My belief is people would rather come to work legally than illegally. 
If we had a temporary worker program that was not a bureaucratic 
nightmare and people who wanted to work in America and had a job in 
America knew they could come here legally, they would choose the legal 
way to come as opposed to the illegal way to come. I believe if we had 
such a program that worked and was efficient and people could count on 
it, including employers counting on it, then pretty soon, one by one, 
we would have legal workers replacing illegal workers because surely 
employers would rather hire people who came here legally.
  If we are going to have an amnesty program, it ought to be one about 
which people can at least say that it

[[Page 8933]]

meets the commonsense test, that it is not a joke, that it is a real, 
serious effort to make people earn their way to citizenship. I want to 
point out some things in the present bill before the Senate that do not 
meet the laugh test, as far as amnesty is concerned.
  The biggest flaw is providing legal status to 12 million people who 
are breaking our law by coming here illegally. Not only do we give 
amnesty to those who are here, but we give it to spouses and children 
in their home countries. In 1986, I voted for amnesty. I was burned 
once. I don't want to be burned twice. With a 1 million-people problem 
at that time, we actually ended up maybe with 3 million people coming 
here under the laws we passed at that time, particularly considering 
family. If it is 12 million people we are talking about now, and 3 
times that, are we talking about 36 million people as opposed to 12 
million people? Amnesty is giving a free ride to 12 million people, and 
maybe 36 million people if you consider 3 for 1. That was the lesson we 
learned in 1986.
  Let's look at the so-called earned legalization provisions. 
Proponents of the bill say that an alien has to pay their taxes, pay a 
fine, learn English, and get in the back of the line--the line leading 
to legalization, the line that eventually could lead to citizenship.
  I respectfully disagree with my colleagues who say that they are 
earning their citizenship. I will go into detail about each of these 
provisions, starting with the $2,000 fine. An illegal alien can go from 
illegal to legal just by paying a fine of $2,000. That is chump change, 
particularly considering that the same people could have paid a 
smuggler five times that amount to get across the border in the first 
place. This is not a heavy fine for the law that they broke. People 
here illegally knowingly crossed our border and overstayed their visa 
each day. They get legal status overnight for a small price; $2,000 is 
a small price to pay for citizenship, especially since they have been 
working in the country and making a living for over 5 years. This fine 
is nothing but a slap on the hand, and it doesn't fit the illegality 
involved.
  The fine of $2,000 isn't due right away. In other words, you don't 
have to pay it right away. For those in the amnesty program, what is 
called the first-tier program, aliens here illegally are supposed to 
pay a fine of $2,000. However, the way the bill is written, many aliens 
here illegally may not have to pay that fine until year 8, 8 years from 
that point. The bill says that the $2,000 fine has to be paid, in the 
words of the legislation, ``prior to adjudication.'' What does that 
mean? The fine is not going to be required up front. If it is left the 
way it is, then the alien here illegally can live, work, and play in 
our country and is immune from deportation, all without paying any fine 
for maybe up to 8 years and all the time imposing a financial burden on 
local taxpayers for health, education, and infrastructure costs that 
are not reimbursed for 5 to 10 years.
  Let's look at the requirement about learning English and civics. 
Under the bill, an illegal alien could fulfill the requirement of 
learning English history and U.S. Government by ``pursuing a course of 
study.'' Until Senator Inhofe's amendment last week, the alien didn't 
have to show their understanding of English or civics, yet the authors 
of this legislation wanted us to believe that in order to get this 
legal status, you had to show proficiency in English and understand how 
our political system works. The Inhofe amendment took care of that, but 
it was certainly a low bar for people illegally in our country to meet.
  On the issue of paying taxes: Under the bill, aliens illegally in our 
country only have to pay 3 of the last years in back taxes. Let me ask 
any taxpayer, wouldn't you like to have the choice of only paying taxes 
on 3 out of any 5 years? But that is supposed to be a step toward 
earning your way to citizenship. Why, if any of us did that and fraud 
was involved, we would be in jail. At the very least, you would have to 
pay all your taxes for all those years and pay fines and penalties. 
But, no, people illegally in our country get an option. You don't get 
an option; my constituents don't get an option, what years they want to 
pay back taxes. We have a tax gap of $345 billion in this country, 
taxes that the IRS is owed but that are not collected. Of course, this 
makes the problem even worse. This bill would treat tax law breakers 
better than the American people. Let's make the alien who is here 
illegally, who gets amnesty, pay all outstanding tax liabilities. That 
is the only way this bill--or at least the portion of this bill we call 
amnesty--can meet the commonsense test.
  On the issue of payment of taxes and the burden that might cause for 
the IRS, that is another portion of this bill that doesn't meet the 
commonsense test. Under the bill, the Internal Revenue Service has to 
prove that an alien here illegally has paid their back taxes. Frankly, 
it will be impossible for the Internal Revenue Service to truly enforce 
this because the Agency cannot audit every single person in the 
country.
  I am chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. We have jurisdiction 
over the Internal Revenue Service. I can tell you that the tax man is 
going to have a difficult time verifying whether an individual owes any 
taxes. Why aren't we putting the burden on the aliens? They need to go 
back and they need to figure out what they owe. That is what each one 
of us does every spring between January and April 15, before we file 
our taxes. We figure out how much we owe, and we have to pay what we 
owe. Then in turn let who is here illegally certify to the Internal 
Revenue Service that they have paid their dues.
  I have an amendment to fix this language and allow the IRS to devise 
a system to make that work. But the end result for this chairman of the 
Finance Committee is that these people who are here illegally should 
not have a better tax posture toward the IRS than any other hard-
working American man and woman.
  Now I want to go to security clearances to be given in 90 days, 
another part of this bill that doesn't meet the commonsense test. The 
compromise would require the Department of Homeland Security to do a 
background check on aliens who are here illegally. In fact, this 
compromise has placed a time limit on our Federal agents. The bill 
encourages the Federal Government to complete the background checks on 
10 million aliens who are here illegally within 90 days. Can you 
imagine that?
  Can you imagine taking care of background checks on 10 million people 
in 90 days? That doesn't meet the commonsense test. It is unrealistic. 
It is not only unrealistic, it is impossible, and a huge burden, as you 
can see, and a huge expense. Homeland Security will surely try to hurry 
with those background checks. They will pressure Congress to rush them. 
There will be a lot of rubberstamping of applications despite possible 
gang participation, criminal activity, terrorist ties, or other 
violations of our laws.
  I am not talking about the vast majority of people who are working in 
America and here illegally. I am talking about a small percentage of 
these people. But with that small percentage, we ought to be sure our 
national security concerns are taken care of, and, no, we should not be 
rushing these clearances through in 90 days.
  When it comes to criminal activity, terrorist ties, other violations 
of the law, and gang participation, that is not true. I will bet that 
99 percent of the people who are here illegally, who are working hard 
to improve their lot in life but still here illegally, violating our 
laws, want a better life. But a small group of them, we have to know 
that they are not a national security risk. And you can't do that in 90 
days with 10 million people.
  Let's talk about during the amnesty process and people having to go 
to the back of the line to work their way toward citizenship. The 
proponents say the aliens who are illegal would have to go to the back 
of the line so they are not getting ahead of those who use our legal 
channels. That whole approach, if you are going to have amnesty, is the 
way to do it. This doesn't meet the commonsense test, but someone has 
to explain to me actually how it works.

[[Page 8934]]

  This is important because at my town meetings--I had 19 town meetings 
in Iowa during the Easter break--some of the most vociferous statements 
against amnesty were made by naturalized citizens who said: How come I 
had to go through all these things and stand in line for long periods 
of time to become a citizen or even be legally in this country and you 
are going to move all of these other people to the head of the line?
  The theory is that they are going to take care of that criticism in 
this bill, but it isn't very practical. How is the Citizenship and 
Immigration Service going to keep track of these people? They can't 
even count right because they give out more visas than the law 
requires. Besides, an alien on an amnesty track is getting the benefits 
that people in their home countries waiting in line to come here 
legally can't get. This whole process denigrates the value of legal 
immigration.
  While here, they get to travel, send their kids to school, open a 
business, and get health services. Is that really going to the back of 
the line?
  The work requirements also don't meet the commonsense test. The bill 
says that an illegal alien has to prove that they have worked in the 
United States for 3 of the last 5 years. It also says they have to work 
for 6 years after the date of enactment. However, there is no 
continuous work requirement through amnesty. So you could work 30 days 
on, 30 days off, 30 days on. It is dishonest to say these people are 
working the entire time.
  Let's get to the evidence of that work history which the bill 
requires. It says a person illegally in the United States has to prove 
they have worked in the United States 3 of the last 5 years. How do you 
do that? They can show the IRS or Social Security Administration 
records or records maintained by Federal, State, and local governments. 
Their employer can attest that they have been working; their labor 
union or day labor center can attest, but that is not all. It might 
meet the commonsense test. But if you can't get records from the IRS or 
the labor union, you can ask anybody to attest that you have been 
employed. The bill doesn't even prohibit the alien to attest 
themselves. Anybody, including a friend, a neighbor, a man on the 
street, could sign the attestation.
  This opens the door to fraud. The Government cannot realistically 
investigate them. Senator Vitter tightened this loophole, but sworn 
affidavits still exist. This is an issue of confidentiality in 
reporting. If an alien illegally in the country is applying for 
amnesty, the Federal Government cannot use information provided in the 
application by adjudication; that is, adjudicating that petition. If 
aliens illegally in the country write in their application that they 
are related to, let's say, Bin Laden, then our Government cannot use 
that information. In fact, it says that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security can only share that information if someone requests it in 
writing.
  Why shouldn't the Secretary be required to provide that information 
to the CIA? If we can link an alien to a drug trafficking kingpin, then 
why shouldn't the application be a source of intelligence?
  This provision severely handicaps our national security and criminal 
investigators, and again a provision in this bill that doesn't meet the 
commonsense test.
  Let's look at the so-called $10,000 fine for bureaucrats. Let's say a 
Federal agent uses the information I just spoke about by an alien in an 
application for amnesty. Under the bill, the agent would be fined 
$10,000. Yes, fined five times more than the alien has to pay to get 
amnesty in the first place. That does not pass the commonsense test.
  Let's look at qualifying for Social Security for aliens who are here 
illegally. The bill does not prohibit illegal aliens from getting 
credit for the money they put into the Social Security system if they 
worked in the United States illegally. Immigrants here illegally who 
paid Social Security taxes using a stolen Social Security number did 
not do so with the expectation that they would ever qualify for Social 
Security benefits. They paid those taxes solely as a cost of doing 
their job. They never paid into the system with a reasonable 
expectation that they would receive any benefits. People who have 
broken the law should not be able to collect benefits based upon 
unlawful conduct. Their conduct has caused damage to countless numbers 
of American citizens and legal immigrants. Because of breaking our law, 
the victims are faced with Internal Revenue audits for unpaid taxes. 
Americans have trouble finding their own jobs and are left to reclaim 
the credit and clear up their personnel information. The Enzi amendment 
would have taken care of this, but it did not pass.
  Our Members, again, gave up an opportunity of having this legislation 
meet another commonsense test. Employers get a criminal pardon for 
hiring illegal aliens under this bill. Not only does this bill legalize 
people who are here illegally, it is going to pardon employers who 
committed criminal activity in hiring illegal aliens in the first 
place.
  The bill says employers of aliens applying for adjustment status 
``shall not be subject to civil or criminal tax liability relating 
directly to the employment of such aliens.''
  That means a business that hired illegal workers now gets off Scott-
free from paying the taxes they should have paid. This encourages 
employers to violate our tax laws and not pay what they owe the Federal 
Government. Why should they get off the hook?
  What damage are we doing, once again as we did in 1986, in ignoring 
the breaking of law, giving amnesty and encouraging further disregard 
for the law in the future?
  In addition to not having to pay their taxes, employers are also off 
the hook for providing illegal aliens with records or evidence that 
they have worked in the United States. The employers are not subject to 
civil or criminal liability for having employed illegal aliens in the 
past or before enactment.
  Then fines for failing to depart, for aliens illegally in this 
country--those in what the bill calls the second tier who have been 
here for a period of time, from 2 years to 5 years, they must depart 
and reenter. If an alien doesn't depart immediately, they face a fine 
of $2,000. If they don't leave within 3 years, they get a $3,000 fine. 
These fines are not incentives for aliens to leave. They could then 
live in the United States for up to 3 years without facing deportation. 
There is no requirement for them to leave immediately.
  Take a look at that subtlety in this legislation. If you want to be 
satisfied with paying a $3,000 fine, you can stay here an additional 3 
years illegally, and we presumably know that you are here illegally.
  The second-tier employment requirements--these illegal aliens also 
have to prove that they have been working in the United States since 
January 7, 2004. They can prove it by attesting to the Federal 
Government or an employer, not necessarily the one that employed them. 
They can also get around the requirement by providing bank records, 
business records, sworn affidavits, or remittance records.
  Since when does proof of sending money back to Mexico prove 
employment? That, too, doesn't meet the commonsense test and is another 
case where the legislation talks about mandatory departure. It really 
is not mandatory.
  The bill says the Secretary of Homeland Security may grant deferred 
mandatory departure for aliens here illegally in the 2- to 5-year 
category. He may, the law says, also waive the departure requirement if 
it would create a substantial hardship for the alien to leave.
  In this legislation, there is a waiver interview requirement. Illegal 
aliens in the second tier who are required to leave the country can 
reenter the United States on a visa, but the bill says they do not have 
to be interviewed. In fact, it doesn't even give discretion to our 
consular officers around the world to require an interview.
  I have advocated for in-person interviews since 9/11, especially 
since the hijackers weren't subject to appear in person. Today, the 
State Department is requiring interviews for most applicants and waives 
them for certain people, particularly those over 60 years of

[[Page 8935]]

age. If an adjudicator wants to have an interview before giving a 
person a visa, they should have the power to do it.
  Guest workers, under the provisions of this compromise, can become 
permanent workers. Unlike almost all visas, the H-2C visa can be used 
as an avenue to legal permanent residence and citizenship. The H-2C 
visa was created as a temporary worker program. In fact, the alien, at 
the time of application, has to prove they did not plan to abandon 
their residence in the foreign country. However, the visa can be 
redeemed for legal permanent residence after only 1 year in the United 
States.
  H-2C workers can self-petition under this compromise. No other visa 
program allows an alien to petition for himself or herself to go from 
temporary worker to seeking citizenship. After 4 years, the alien can 
sponsor themselves for permanent residence in the United States. We had 
an amendment to tighten this provision, but the self-petition measure 
is still in the bill.
  Family members of H-2C visa holders need not be healthy. Under 
current law, aliens must prove they are admissible and meet certain 
health standards. Many times, visa applicants must have a medical exam 
to show they do not have communicable diseases. They have to be up to 
date on immunizations and cannot have mental disorders. Spouses and 
children of H-2C visa holders, however, are exempt from this 
requirement. I have an amendment to fix this provision.
  The H-1B visa cap can increase automatically. The annual cap is 
increased from 65,000 to 115,000, but it contains an additional built-
in escalator. If the cap is reached in 1 year, it can be increased by 
20 percent the next year. It cannot be decreased; it can only go up.
  There will be no serious evaluation of the need for foreign workers, 
and Congress loses its control over importation of cheaper labor.
  There are no strings attached in this bill to new student visas. The 
bill creates a new visa that lowers the bar for foreign students who 
wish to come here and study math, science, and engineering. They can 
work off campus while in school, thus taking American jobs. They also 
can easily adjust from a student to a U.S. worker. They do not have to 
prove they will return to their home country when applying for the 
visa. Why would a student come here to study anything if they could be 
approved instantly without the requirement of the old visa system? Have 
some people forgotten that the September 11 terrorists came on student 
visas?
  Now the US-VISIT provision. Congress mandated in 1996 the entry-exit 
system known to us under the acronym of US-VISIT. This program was 
authorized 10 years ago. It is still not up and running.
  The bill says Homeland Security has to give Congress a schedule for 
equipping all land border ports of entry and making the system 
interoperable with other screening systems. Why, oh why, aren't they 
getting this job done? Why does Congress give the agency more time to 
get this system running? It does not make sense for us to ask for 
another timeline; it seems sensible just to get it done.
  In the final analysis, I am probably only 1 of 15 Senators still in 
this Senate since the 1986 immigration law was passed, but I was led to 
believe in 1986 that by voting for amnesty with employer sanctions, we 
would solve our illegal immigration problem. It just encouraged further 
illegal immigration. I quantify that by saying it was a 1 million-
person program in 1986. Today, it is a 12 million-person problem. And 
20 years from now, if we do not do it right this time, it is going to 
be a 25 million-person problem. You get burned once, but you should not 
get burned twice or you have not learned anything. In the process, we 
ought to get it right this time. I don't think granting amnesty 20 
years after we made the first mistake is the way to do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the 
leadership of Senator Grassley. He spoke from the heart. He was here 
during the 1986 amnesty debate. I happened to go back and I saw a 
summary of that debate. The Members argued on one side saying it was a 
one-time amnesty; others said amnesty begets amnesty, that if this 
occurs, there will be more to come. In truth, we see which side has 
prevailed.
  Chairman Grassley has given much insight and wisdom. I hope our 
Members will consider what he has to say. It is thoughtful, honest, and 
direct, as always.
  I do remain troubled that the Senate is moving steadily, like a train 
down the tracks, to pass an immigration bill that is deeply flawed. It 
dramatically increases legal immigration and has no guarantee that 
significantly improved enforcement procedures will ever be carried out. 
In fact, the Senate rejected the Isakson amendment which would have 
conditioned amnesty on effective enforcement. Clearly, we have not 
comprehended the ramifications of rewarding those who have broken our 
laws with all the benefits we give to those who lawfully enter, thereby 
undermining, as Senator Grassley said, the rule of law in this country.
  Further, this legislation, which claims to be comprehensive, provides 
a radical increase in future legal immigration almost with no 
discussion or consideration of what is good policy for our future. In 
addition, the legislation has been crafted in a way that hides and 
conceals, even misrepresents, its real effects.
  Thus, I have said it should never pass. I have said that these 
actions are unworthy of the great Senate of the United States. I have 
said, and I think correctly, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
  What should we be doing? What should the Senate of the United States 
be doing? We should be working openly and diligently on these issues 
and should have been for some time. We should be seeking the input of 
experts and carefully studying relevant data. Certainly we should be 
consulting with those who have hired us--at least for a term--the 
American people.
  In my view, the American people have been right from the beginning. 
They have rejected an immigration system that makes a mockery of law, a 
system that rewards illegal behavior, while placing unnecessary 
bureaucratic hurdles in the face of those who dutifully attempt to 
comply with the law. In the decades before the 1986 amnesty and after, 
they have urged and pleaded with the powers that be to end the 
illegality, to secure the border, and to develop a system based on the 
commonsense interests of our Nation. The American people have been 
arrogantly ignored by the executive branch and by the Congress.
  We have failed to fulfill our responsibilities, in direct opposition 
to the legitimate and clearly stated will of the American people.
  In every way, the American people have been correct. They have been 
motivated by the highest of American ideals, despite what the critics 
say. They have sought a lawful, wise system of immigration. It is 
unfair to ascribe to the good American people the words of some 
frustrated and extreme person whose anger overflows--the talk show 
callers and the like. That is not the heart of the American people, 
just because someone mis-spoke on a talk show or in a conversation. 
What they are saying is legitimate, principled, and consistent with the 
American ideals. We have not responded to it. We did not respond to it 
before 1986. We did not respond to it in 1986. We have not responded to 
it since.
  The American people will support a fair and generous immigration 
policy for the future, and they will support compassionate and fair 
treatment of people who have come here illegally. They are not asking 
that they be prosecuted, locked up, or that every one be hauled out of 
America. That is not so. No one is proposing that in any serious way.
  Make no mistake, we cannot treat lightly and it is a grave step to 
concede, to admit, that the laws of the United States will be ignored 
and not enforced. During the 1986 amnesty debate, it was argued that 
amnesty would be a one-time event. People argued that if that were 
done, it would weaken the rule of law and encourage more

[[Page 8936]]

people to enter the country illegally, confident that at some day in 
the future, amnesty would be available to them, too. I ask my 
colleagues, who was right 20 years ago?
  Senator Grassley just told us who was right. He said he believed it 
was a mistake when he voted for it. Not many Senators have the gumption 
to come to the Senate and admit they made a mistake. While amnesty just 
20 years ago created a legal route to citizenship for 3 million people 
not here legally, today we are expecting, 20 years later, 11 million 
and perhaps 20 million people could benefit from this amnesty.
  We must acknowledge that when you play around with the rule of law in 
a nation that expects to be treated seriously, you have done something 
quite significant. It cannot be altered or undermined without real 
consequences. Life has consequences. If you pass a law and then turn 
around and admit you cannot enforce it, with a promise that we are 
going to enforce it in the future and we are going to allow everyone 
who violated a law a free pass, what does that say about the future? 
These are not light matters. If we could do it like that, if we could 
make this kind of 180-degree turn without consequences, it would be one 
thing, but life is not that way. We are supposed to be a mature branch 
of Government of the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth. Surely 
we know that. Surely we know we cannot do this lightly. I am afraid 
some have not given enough thought to that.
  I wanted to share those remarks at the beginning because we are 
dealing with huge numbers of people who will be legalized. We will be 
dealing with a fundamental expansion of immigration, a massive amnesty, 
large increases in governmental expenditures, and an enforcement 
promise I am not sure we will ever see occur because enforcement was 
promised in 1986. It was faithfully and honestly guaranteed by 
supporters of that bill in 1986, and it was never accomplished.
  I will introduce four amendments this afternoon. The four amendments 
are, first, a numerical limit amendment, an amendment to cap the 
immigration increases caused by this bill. The numbers CBO and the 
White House say we should expect include 7 million and their dependents 
under amnesty. Additionally, CBO and the White House estimate that 
under this bill 8 million new immigrants will flow into the country 
above the current level 10 million over the next 10 years. Got that? 
What my amendment will do is cap green cards at 7 million for amnesty, 
plus we are going to add 8 million to the current flow in the future.
  We think the numbers are higher than that. But that is what the CBO 
says the numbers are. That is what the White House has trumpeted as the 
numbers. So at least, I suggest, this Senate should make clear those 
are the numbers, and let's pass it, so we will not have this danger 
that the bill will spin out of control or in fact will be much more 
generous to immigration than some are currently suggesting, even CBO.
  Another amendment will be the earned-income tax credit. This would be 
an amendment to eliminate the earned-income tax credit for illegal 
aliens and those who have adjusted status under this bill. Once illegal 
aliens become citizens, they will once again be eligible for the 
earned-income tax credit. But it is a huge expense, maybe over $20 
billion over 20 years.
  I will have an amendment to deal with chain migration which has to do 
with provisions that are continued in current law but are not 
principled and do not serve our Nation well. If we want to admit more 
skill-based immigrants, we must reduce the right of immigrants to bring 
in certain categories of relatives, regardless of skill, regardless of 
ability to perform.
  We will work on those four amendments, and I hope we will be able to 
get a vote on them. I know people are saying: No, no, we need to move 
this bill on. We can't go another day. We have to finish this debate. 
You guys have had your little amendments. The train is moving. Get off 
the track. We are going forward. And I am already hearing that we are 
moving in that direction: The debate is going to be limited, and we 
will have to curtail our legitimate amendments.
  I submit to you, the amendments I am offering here are legitimate 
amendments that go to real issues of national importance, not some 
technical thing.
  My amendment that deals with the total number of immigrants into the 
United States comports with the estimates of the Congressional Budget 
Office which has run these numbers. I thought they were low, but that 
is what they say, and the White House has jumped right on it and said: 
These are the numbers, and Sessions and the Heritage Foundation are all 
wrong. Their numbers are not good. These are good numbers, so let's 
just have a vote on it and let's make it law.
  They estimate that a total of 7 million illegal aliens and their 
dependents will be granted status under the bill. Of the 11 million, 
they say 7 million will be granted status.
  Additionally, the CBO and the White House estimate this bill will 
increase current immigration levels--which are now about 1 million a 
year legally--by about 8 million over a 10-year period, making total 
immigration into the United States over the next 10 years nearly 18 
million instead of the currently expected 10 million, setting aside 
those who get amnesty.
  Under various provisions of current law, the United States issues 
just under 1 million--approximately 950,000--green cards every year to 
people coming through immigration channels legally.
  In 10 years, if this law remains the same as today, almost 10 million 
people will join the United States. Over 20 years, it would be about 
18.9 million people--just under 20 million--under current law.
  Under this bill that is on the floor today, we have been shocked to 
find the breadth of the numbers.
  Almost 2 weeks ago, my staff and the Heritage Foundation did separate 
extensive analyses to determine the total number of people who would be 
coming into America under this bill, if it passes.
  At a press conference last Monday--the first time anybody had even 
discussed it--Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the Heritage 
Foundation, joined with me to reveal the results of our studies and to 
shed some light on the future immigration policy changes in the bill.
  According to my projections, the bill would have increased the legal 
immigration population by 78 million to 217 million over the course of 
the next 20 years. I would note, the current population of the United 
States today is less than 300 million. So 100 million would be a one-
third increase in the population by immigration; 200 million, of 
course, would be two-thirds of an increase in the population.
  Mr. Rector's estimate was within the range I projected--coming in at 
100 million over the course of 20 years. I just tried to figure out 
what the low numbers could be and the high numbers could be. He focused 
on what he thought the number would turn out to be. He found it to be 
103 million people over the next 20 years--one-third of the current 
population of the United States of America.
  So the day after those numbers were released, the Senate adopted an 
amendment offered by Senator Bingaman--I see him on the floor today--
which is, I think, perhaps, the most significant amendment we have 
adopted to date, that capped the number of people who could come into 
the country under that bill's new H-2C temporary guest worker program 
at 200,000 per year, not 325,000. And it ended this 20-percent 
automatic escalator clause.
  I say to Senator Bingaman, I thank you for your effectiveness on that 
amendment. And it ended up having a pretty nice vote. But until that 
time, we had not begun to discuss on the floor of the Senate anything 
other than enforcement at the border and amnesty provisions. We had not 
even thought about it. How did they put this in there? How did they 
come up with an automatic 20-percent increase in immigration for a low-
skilled provision of this bill? Who wrote that in there? Did anybody 
even know it was there?

[[Page 8937]]

  If my fine staff had not been digging into it, I am not sure it would 
have been found. Well, the Heritage Foundation also dug into it, but 
awfully late. The bill had been tried to be pushed through this Senate 
about a month ago without any debate, without any amendments. They were 
just going to move that through. So it was a good improvement.
  We now expect, after this however, that the numbers are still huge. I 
project the expected numbers in the next 20 years will be between 73 
million and 92 million. Robert Rector has estimated that it will be 66 
million over the next 210 years. He didn't include H-1B in his 
calculations.
  So without any growth in the H-1B, the high-skilled visa program, we 
come in at 73 million. Under the maximum growth, we would come in at 92 
million. Current levels, under current law, would be 10 million. Now, 
that is a big, big deal. It represents a serious policy decision of the 
people of the United States. And how many American people know we are 
talking about that? And 92 million is over four times the current rate 
of immigration in this country--five times really. From where did that 
come?
  So even after Senator Bingaman's effective amendment, it is important 
to remember that both the Heritage Foundation's--Mr. Robert Rector's--
projections and mine calculate the bill will still increase current 
levels of immigration three- to fivefold over the next 20 years. The 
realistic estimate, I think, is four times the current rate. Is that 
what we need? Maybe it is. But we sure have not talked about it. Have 
you heard the American people consulted on that? We already have a 
pretty generous immigration system, I submit. It brings in a million 
people a year.
  People say: Well, you have lots of illegal immigrants too. That would 
be 50 percent more, maybe 500,000 a year, as estimated. That is not 
three, four, five times the current rate.
  Last Tuesday, the CBO released its final score of the Senate 
immigration bill. They estimated that if it passes, it would result in 
an 8 million person increase in the population over the first 10 years. 
The precise estimate is 7.8 million, which can be found on page 4 of 
the CBO score.
  This estimated 8 million increase accounts for only future legal 
immigration caused by the bill. It does not include an estimate for the 
number of illegal aliens. We are not going to take that to zero, 
surely. Surely, we will make some progress to reduce illegal 
immigration, but it is not going to zero.
  The CBO estimate for how many in the illegal alien population would 
benefit from the bill's amnesty provisions is contained in a separate 
calculation on page 22. On page 22, CBO estimates that 1 million 
illegal aliens will be adjusted under the AgJOBS provisions, and that 
two-thirds of the 6 million illegal aliens here for more than 5 years, 
and 50 percent of the 2 million illegal aliens here between 2 and 5 
years, will adjust status under the bill's provisions.
  So according to CBO, a total of 6 million illegal immigrants will 
become le-
gal permanent--permanent--residents 
under the bill and be placed on an automatic path to citizenship.
  Now, the White House, last Thursday, in a press release, entitled 
``Setting the Record Straight''--OK--wholeheartedly embraced the CBO 
report and claimed that the 8 million future immigration estimate by 
CBO is ``consistent with most research on immigration issues.''
  The White House press release also embraced the CBO estimate on the 
current illegal alien population but stated it a little differently. 
According to the White House, CBO estimated that about one-third of 
illegal immigrants eligible for legalization under the bill are 
unlikely to become legal permanent residents. Therefore, the logical 
conclusion of this statement is that two-thirds of the eligible illegal 
alien population will likely become legal permanent residents.
  The White House press statement directly implies that the White House 
does not expect more than two-thirds of the illegal alien population to 
become legal permanent residents under the bill.
  If 10.3 million people have been illegally present for more than 2 
years, two-thirds of that number would mean approximately 7 million 
people now living here illegally will benefit from the amnesty 
provisions. This estimate--7 million--is 1 million higher than the way 
CBO lays out the numbers on page 22 of their score.
  As the press statement points out, these estimates are much lower 
than the estimates that Robert Rector or my staff, after extensive 
review, came up with.
  Although I highly doubt we have true numbers from the CBO, I 
sincerely hope they are accurate, and not mine. It is imperative that 
the American people, however, be able to trust their Government--
particularly those agencies that enforce these laws--when discussing 
issues such as these. My amendment will adopt the CBO and White House 
estimates as the realistic result of S. 2611's increases in 
immigration.
  Under the amendment we are offering, the number of green cards that 
CBO and the White House estimate will be needed will be made available 
for the adjustment of status provisions and future immigration levels 
caused by the bill.
  First, the amendment limits the number of green cards available under 
the bill's amnesty provisions to two-thirds of the qualified illegal 
alien population of about 10.3 million--a total of 7 million green 
cards.
  Second, the amendment limits the increase in future immigration to 8 
million above the current level of 10 million over 10 years. Under the 
amendment, the total number of green cards issued shall not exceed 18 
million over any 10-year period, starting with the 2007-2016 10-year 
period.
  Because real numbers of current immigration levels would only reach 
about 9,500,000 in 10 years, an additional 500,000 green cards are 
added to the White House's estimate in this amendment.
  It is important that we limit the bill's effects to the numbers being 
used to justify the bill's passage, at least. The American people are 
much more accepting when they know the numbers we are asking them to 
believe in. And they are asking us to make sure we tell them 
truthfully, and that we comply with it. Though I am not in favor of 
granting amnesty to those who break the law, I believe it is important 
to hold the administration to its word when enacting a comprehensive 
reform bill.
  My amendment limits the number of illegal aliens who can be granted 
amnesty under the bill. This limit will in turn limit the potential for 
fraudulent adjustments of status. It would also say if there were more 
claiming for green cards under amnesty than projected, and they met all 
the qualifications, they would get those green cards, but the future 
flow numbers would be reduced to cover that. Unlike the bill as 
written, my amendment would allow for a controlled increase in legal 
migration by placing a cap on the number of green cards that can be 
issued under the bill's other provisions. The fact is, we cannot admit 
everyone who wants to come to our country. Unlimited immigration will 
put a strain on finite resources. Therefore, in addition to properly 
enforcing our laws and securing our borders, we must put reasonable 
limits on the number of people who can enter permanently.
  Under my amendment, future immigration will be increased by--hold 
your hat--80 percent, but not as much as the current bill allows, 300 
to 500 percent. Eighty percent is too high. We haven't had the evidence 
to justify that, but I am saying, let's put this up for a vote so when 
this bill goes through here, we will at least know what the top level 
is.
  This amendment is sensible and responsible. I ask my colleagues to 
vote for it. Later, I hope to have the opportunity in the debate--I see 
others, and I won't utilize any more time--to talk in more detail about 
the earned-income tax credit amendment, the need to reform in a 
significant way the unprincipled chain migration provisions of the 
bill, and the H-2C green cards future

[[Page 8938]]

flow cap for H-2C green cards to be issued.
  I thank my colleagues for their time. I urge each one of us to spend 
some serious time in analyzing the impact of this hugely important 
piece of legislation that the American people care about, and 
rightfully so. It is our responsibility to get it right. We don't want 
to be back here, as Senator Grassley has done today, and say we have 
made a mistake in 2006.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________