[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13398-13406]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1348, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1348) to provide for comprehensive immigration 
     reform and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Kennedy/Specter) amendment No. 1150, in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, is recognized for up to 2 hours.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair for recognition and 
want to continue the discussion on the very important piece of 
legislation that is now before the Senate.
  I do believe the immigration system is comprehensively broken. I have 
said for some time we need a comprehensive solution to it, to 
comprehensively reform it, but to reform it in a way that will actually 
work, that will do it with principles we can adhere to in the future, 
that will move us from a lawless system of immigration.
  Most people may not know but 1.1 million people are arrested each 
year entering our country illegally. Think about the cost and personnel 
involved in processing that many people. It is a system that is not 
working. We know many people are getting by the border and not being 
apprehended.
  It rightly causes the American people to question how serious we are 
in Congress when we say we want to do something about it. They believe 
we should do something about it. We say we want to do something about 
it, but eventually, as time goes along, for one reason or another, 
little ever seems to occur that actually works.
  I have stated more than once we can pass a lot of legislation in this 
Senate dealing with immigration, but if you offer something that will 
actually work, to actually fix the problem, to actually be effective, 
we always have much wailing and crying and gnashing of teeth, and 
usually those things do not become law.
  Last year, I was very critical of the bill that was offered. I said 
it was fatally flawed. I said it should be withdrawn and urged my 
colleagues that if we drafted a bill for this session of Congress it 
should not be based on last year's fatally flawed bill but that we 
should start over and create a system that would create a genuine 
temporary worker program, not the flawed program that was there last 
year, that would move us toward a Canadian-based system where people 
all over the world could apply to our country, and they would be 
selected based on their merits and the skills and abilities they bring 
that would be valuable to our country.
  I noted that we needed, of course, effective border enforcement as 
well as workplace enforcement, and we ought not to create a system that 
gives someone who enters our country illegally every single benefit we 
give to those who come to the country legally. The legal people do 
deserve to be treated in a different way than those who come illegally.
  Now, I know as a matter of compassion and practicality we have to 
wrestle with the 12 million people here. I never doubted that. Nobody 
doubts that. How we deal with it, though, is a matter that will 
determine what policies we, as a nation, adhere to. It will send a 
signal to people all over the world that we are actually going to 
insist that we have a legal system of immigration and we intend to 
enforce it.
  It is one thing to have a law, but if you are not prepared to enforce 
it and go through the process that is oftentimes painful to catch 
someone who violated the law and then have them

[[Page 13399]]

deported--oftentimes that is a painful process--you either are going to 
do that or we might as well admit here we have no intention of 
enforcing any laws.
  I do not think that is what we do. Almost every Senator has stated 
they want a lawful system of immigration, Republicans and Democrats. I 
do not think we have a problem. I would say yesterday and last week I 
had a very great concern that a plan was afoot to get cloture on the 
bill yesterday. The old bill, which I steadfastly believe is not an 
effective piece of legislation, would then be substituted by a new 
piece of legislation. That happened last night. It is approximately 300 
pages of fine print and maybe 1,000 pages of the kind of legislative 
bill language we normally use here. It is one of the largest pieces of 
legislation to be introduced since I have been in the Senate. I think 
the Presiding Officer, Senator Landrieu, might remember some of the 
omnibus bills may have been that big, but I cannot remember a single 
piece of legislation since I have been in the Senate that would be 800 
to 1,000 pages.
  So the scheme or the plan was to try to move that through this week. 
I am glad Senator Harry Reid, a man whom I enjoy working with, did 
agree last night he would not try to move this bill through this week, 
that we would be able to talk about it this week, that we would be in 
recess for Memorial Day, and the next week after that we would have 
another full week of discussions. I think we need more than that.
  Madam President, I see my colleague Senator Inhofe is in the Chamber. 
I say to the Senator, I know he has a tight schedule, and when he is 
ready to make his remarks, I would be pleased to yield to him.
  We are on the track now to have a full week of discussion. But it 
would be unfortunate, indeed, if my colleagues in the Senate, if the 
American people, were not to utilize that time to ask seriously what it 
is we are about in this ``grand compromise'' that has been proposed for 
us.
  I think there is a possibility that good legislation could yet come 
out of this that would be worthy of passing. I am aware, as so many of 
us are, of the language from the supporters of this compromise that, 
well, they say: Nothing is perfect. The perfect is the enemy of the 
good. There are a lot of things in the bill I don't like. I think there 
are things that could be better, and that sort of thing, but I am for 
it.
  I would ask why it is we do not take out those things that are not 
good? Why it is we do not create a bill we can be proud of and that 
eliminates weaknesses and problems? Because like jumping across a 10-
foot ravine, jumping 9 feet is not good enough. If you jump 9 feet, you 
still fall to your doom. So let's create a system that will work. Many 
of the defects are of such a nature that could actually undermine the 
very principles that have been stated as the basis for this compromise. 
If we cannot accomplish those principles, why do it?
  There are some good things in the bill and some things I am very 
troubled with. We will talk about them more as we go along.
  Madam President, I see the Senator from Oklahoma. We serve together 
on the Armed Services Committee and I admire him greatly. He cares 
about our soldiers and has spent more time in Iraq than any Member of 
the House or the Senate, I suppose, meeting with our soldiers and 
trying to figure out the best way to handle our efforts there. I admire 
him greatly, Senator Jim Inhofe.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I thank the Senator very much for the 
time.


                                  Iraq

  Madam President, before getting into this bill, I want to comment 
that last week when I was there--it was my 14th time to be in the AOR 
of the Middle East and where the conflict is--the progress that is 
being made there is incredible. I sat here and I heard a couple 
Senators talk about how bad things were there and that we are losing 
and all this.
  This is the first time--I remember a year ago in Ramadi they actually 
declared Ramadi was going to be the al-Qaida capital of the Middle East 
or the terrorist capital of the Middle East. Right now, it is 
completely changed. IEDs are down 81 percent. Attacks are down 74 
percent. Then, next door at Fallujah, they are now totally under the 
security of the Iraqi security forces.
  So all these good things are happening there. I wish Members of this 
Senate would go over there and see for themselves instead of trying to 
use it politically to advance their careers. You are doing a great 
disservice to our troops over there.
  But that is not why I am here in the Chamber.
  I appreciate the comments that have been made by the Senator from 
Alabama. I agree with everything he has said. My concern is at 2 a.m. 
on Saturday morning is when all this came up. We did not have any way 
of knowing exactly what was in it. Yet I am concerned about all sorts 
of things, such as how do you make a Z visa work.
  But the reason I want to have a little time right now is because I do 
have an amendment. It is my understanding I will be able to call up 
this amendment for consideration after the Senator from North Dakota 
has his up, and that will be later this afternoon.
  My amendment is the English amendment. Those Members on the floor can 
remember a year ago I got an amendment adopted that made English the 
national language for the United States of America. It passed by a vote 
of 62 to 35. There are some extremist groups that opposed it and, quite 
frankly, some of the liberal Members of the Senate were afraid to vote 
for it without having a backup where they could negate it. This is what 
happened. They voted for my amendment.
  The amendment is very simple. It says there is not an entitlement for 
a language, other than the English language, to be given to people who 
want Government services. Very simple. That is the same way over 50 
other countries, including Ghana in West Africa, have it.
  The Presiding Officer knows I have spent a lot of time in Africa on 
some of the same programs she has been involved with, and most of the 
countries in sub-Saharan Africa--the ones that speak English--all have 
English as their national language. Thirty states have it as their 
national language, but not we in the United States of America.
  There is going to be an effort on my part to get this in the bill, 
and I am going to use similar text to what I had last time.
  It is interesting when you hear different Presidents talk about this 
issue. In 1999, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton 
said:

       Our new immigrants must be part of our one America . . . 
     that means learning English.

  Everyone said ``hooray,'' and then he came along with an executive 
order right after that which did away with that statement completely.
  President Bush said:

       The key to unlocking the full promise of America is the 
     ability to speak English.

  We know how many States have adopted this. The polling is incredible. 
A 2006 Zogby poll reported 84 percent of Americans--I have polls 
showing up to 91 percent--said English should be the national language. 
And 71 percent of Hispanics polled by that Zogby poll said the same 
thing. This poll was in 2006, only a year ago, demonstrating how many 
Americans believe English should be our national language. Establishing 
English as a national language should not be viewed as a partisan 
issue. It is widely supported throughout the country.
  In this Congress, in this immigration debate, I am again offering my 
amendment to make English the national language. My amendment would 
accomplish three things. No. 1, it would establish English as the 
national language of the United States of America. No. 2, it would 
establish that the official business of the Federal Government should 
be conducted in English, and eliminates all of the entitlements people 
would have for language other than English. Now, it does respect 
current law. For example, we have the

[[Page 13400]]

Court Interpreters Act. The Court Interpreters Act is necessary to 
support the sixth amendment, the right to counsel, and we are making 
sure this doesn't affect that in a negative way.
  So we create no restriction of providing materials of other languages 
and allow certain exceptions where it is specifically mandated by 
statute. We made that very clear.
  My amendment does not prohibit the use of other languages. However, 
my amendment states:

       There is no entitlement to individuals that Federal 
     agencies must act, communicate, perform, or provide services 
     or materials in any language other than English.

  So it is hypocritical that the immigration legislation we are 
considering now contains a section generally recognizing the importance 
of English. However, this section 702 of this immigration legislation 
does not establish English as a national language.
  Now, we had this debate. We were on the Senate floor and debating 
this about a year ago right now, and people were hesitant to vote for 
it. We had every kind of excuse in the world. They came trotting in 
here with State flags that had foreign languages on them saying: We 
would have to do away with all of these State flags.
  It has nothing to do with that. We are talking about entitlements.
  We had one Member come in and say: You are going to be responsible 
for the deaths of Hispanics.
  I said: Explain that.
  This Member on the Senate floor, right down here, said: Well, you 
know, they have some bad currents down in the Potomac, and we have ``no 
swimming'' signs that are written in Spanish. If you don't have those, 
then people are going to drown.
  This has nothing to do with that. You can put up any kind of sign you 
want that is in the best public interest.
  We had one Member come down and say: You would never be able to speak 
in Spanish on the floor of the Senate.
  Well, that has nothing to do with it. I have made a few speeches in 
Spanish, and there is a reason for it which I will not go into now. But 
these are things that people say are problems and things that just 
don't hold up.
  Now, I think it should be pointed out--because a very good friend of 
mine was on a television station this morning, and I know this 
individual would not have said what he said if he were aware of the 
truth, but let me just bring this out. A year ago, when I had my 
amendment, which would do essentially what the amendment will do if it 
is passed today, Senator Salazar from Colorado came up with an 
amendment right afterwards. In fact, we voted on it in a matter of 
minutes after we voted on mine, 62 to 35, and his passed also. All his 
did was offer language that is totally different from mine.
  For example, I am going to read his. It didn't say English is the 
national language, it says it is a common language.

       Preserving and Enhancing the Role of the English Language: 
     The Government of the United States shall preserve and 
     enhance the role of English as the language of the United 
     States.

  But listen to this:

       Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights 
     under the laws of the United States relevant to services or 
     materials provided by the Government of the United States in 
     any language other than English.

  There it is, folks: ``Nothing herein shall diminish or expand . . .'' 
In other words, it is going to continue to be the same.
  Now, there are a lot of people out there who are going to be looking 
at this amendment. Americans are clamoring to have this done. They 
don't understand why we don't do this. I don't understand it either. 
But this language is found in the current immigration bill.
  Down here under ``definition'' in section 702, which was in the 
language that was put in 2 minutes after my vote took place a year ago, 
it says:

       For the purposes of this section, law is defined as 
     including provisions of the United States Constitution, the 
     United States Code, controlling judicial decisions, 
     regulations, and Presidential Executive Orders.

  Now, this is a very significant one because what you hear about quite 
often is President Clinton's Executive Order No. 13166 entitlement, 
which offers entitlement to translation in any language of your choice, 
anyone who receives any Federal funds. Well, that completely opens the 
door for every possible language. A lot of people think we are only 
talking about Spanish. That is not correct. That Executive order refers 
to any language at all. This bill we are considering that I will oppose 
has language in there that would codify that Executive Order No. 13166, 
and I think it is one that people have to understand.
  The Senator from Alabama is not back, so I will take a little bit 
more time. I am going to read the language now that is actually in the 
amendment which says English shall be the national language of the 
Government of the United States: The Government of the United States 
shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language 
of the United States of America, unless specifically provided by 
statute.
  Now, I use as an example the court interpreters law, existing law 
right now. It says, unless specifically provided by statute, no person 
has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United 
States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, 
perform, or provide services or provide materials in any language other 
than English. If an exception is made with respect to the use of a 
language other than English, the exception does not create a legal 
entitlement to additional services in that language or in any language 
other than English.
  Forms--it says:

       If any form is issued by the Federal Government in any 
     language other than English, or such form is completed in a 
     language other than English, the English language version of 
     the form is the sole authority for all legal purposes.

  Again, there is one sentence in there that says:

       Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the use of language 
     other than English if it is codified into law.

  That is what we use the Court Interpreters Act for, and a few others, 
where there is a constitutional reason--in this case it is the sixth 
amendment to the Constitution--for having that language in there.
  So what I will do until the Senator from Alabama returns is mention a 
few other things I think are significant. This is not a new issue. This 
is an old issue, and the old issue goes back to many years ago, to 
President Theodore Roosevelt in the 1900s:

       Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn 
     English, but that he has got to learn it. He has got to 
     consider the interests of the United States or he should not 
     stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in 
     this country depend on his knowing English and observing 
     American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to 
     regard him only as an industrial asset.

  Now, that was President Theodore Roosevelt in 1916. I could go 
through--we have them all the way up, including Ronald Reagan and other 
Presidents. Later on, I will go over the polling data. Later on, if we 
have a chance to present this and debate this amendment, I am going to 
go over all the polling data. You cannot find any polling data that 
says less than 84 percent of the American people want to have English 
as the national language.
  So even LaRaza, an extremist, leftwing group, says they found in a 
2004 poll that LaRaza did, 97 percent strongly--86 percent--97 percent 
that is strongly or somewhat agreed that the ability to speak English 
is important to succeed in this country. That is the extremist group. 
In other words, if you want to be an attorney or a doctor instead of a 
busboy, you need to learn the language.
  Now, I see the Senator from Alabama is back, but let me just repeat 
the one thing that I think is very important because so many of our own 
Members--Republicans and Democrats--believe somehow this bill 
positively addresses the problem or it makes English the national 
language. I am going to go ahead and tell you that when they put 
section 702 in instead of my language, section 701, all they said is 
English is a common language in the United States. Big deal. But it 
says in here:

       Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights 
     under the laws of the

[[Page 13401]]

     United States relative to services or materials provided by 
     the Government of the United States in any language other 
     than English.

  Well, there it is, I say to my friend from Alabama. Nothing in here 
would diminish or expand. In other words, it is going to stay like it 
is today. But then it goes on to say--and this is the critical thing--
all the criticism of President Clinton when he passed Executive Order 
No. 13166, which was an entitlement for a translator in any language 
you want other than English, or the language of your choice if you are 
a recipient of Federal funds. So that definition, if we pass this 
bill--which I don't think we are going to, and which I don't want to 
for many other reasons--but if we pass it, we would say for the 
purposes of this section of law, the law is defined as including 
provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the United States Code, 
controlling judicial decisions, regulation, and Presidential Executive 
orders. In other words, we are codifying this very Executive Order that 
so many people in America find so offensive.
  So I think this is an opportunity to put this in. Quite frankly, I 
think unless the bill would be dramatically changed, I still wouldn't 
support the bill, but we need to have every opportunity we can, when we 
are addressing problems with immigrants or legislation of this nature, 
to make English the national language. Ninety percent of the American 
people are for it, 77 percent of the Hispanics are for it, and I am for 
it.
  I thank my colleague very much for his time, I say to the Senator 
from Alabama, who has done a great job.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe for sharing this 
with us. I think he understands, and all of us need to understand, as 
we continue the flow of immigration at a level we have not sustained 
before in our history. Once or twice we have peaked at immigration 
levels close to what we have today. Most of those immigrants, in fact, 
or many of them, spoke English. Regardless of that, we are sustaining a 
level of immigration that is unprecedented in American history.
  People are coming from all over the world, and English is being 
taught all over the world. What we need to understand is that it is 
even more important now that we officially and systematically and 
effectively emphasize that English is the unifying language because, as 
you have greater and greater numbers of people who don't speak English 
as a native language, encouraging, requiring, incentivizing English as 
the national language is the glue that can hold us together and can 
avoid cultural divisions that we might otherwise have.
  I think the American people understand that, as the polling data of 
Senator Inhofe showed. Hispanic voters, when they are told about this, 
recognize it is critical for their children who are going--for them to 
receive the greatest benefits of the American dream, to flourish in our 
culture and our economy, that they be able to speak English. For some 
reason, we went through a period--and hopefully we are coming out of 
it--where we felt it necessary to try to communicate in foreign 
languages to other people, therefore diminishing their incentive to 
learn English and weakening our commitment as a nation that English 
should be the unifying language.
  I thank the Senator for raising this subject, and I believe it is 
important.
  I will just say one more thing. A lot of nations do have trouble 
getting along. Oftentimes, it goes down language lines. We have even 
seen our neighbors in Canada almost divide over French and English 
portions of the country. They wanted to separate from one another, and 
we see that around the world. So if we are to remain a nation of 
immigrants, and we are going to do that, I think it may be even more 
important today that we emphasize the unifying language of English than 
we ever have before.
  I think most people when they came here wanted their children to 
learn English, and they did so. But we have a situation today that 
could get away from us in terms of transmitting to them the benefits of 
citizenship, the benefits of our economy because, if they can't 
communicate, it won't be effective.
  The bipartisan negotiations that were carried out in an attempt to 
reach a good bill set forth some principles. Those principles seem to 
be the ones that were leaked as part of a PowerPoint presentation that 
the White House worked on. That presentation was made to me. I thought 
it was pretty good. I thought it was a much better framework for 
immigration than last year's bill. I said repeatedly in recent weeks 
that we had a framework superior to last year's bill that could 
actually lead us to something important.
  Unfortunately, the four main principles that were so often talked 
about--the trigger, a temporary worker program, the elimination of 
chain migration, and the creation of a merit system and no amnesty for 
the illegal alien population--are insufficiently effectuated by this 
legislation. They have the appearance of doing those things and maybe 
in a few areas improve over current law or last year's bill, but they 
don't effectively carry it out. So I am worried about that situation.
  I am worried that, yes, our supporters say: We have problems with the 
bill, but overall it is good. If we have problems with the bill, let's 
look at those problems, let's see if they can be fixed, and let's make 
a better bill. Let's not pass a bill that we tell the American people 
is going to fix the immigration problem in America when it has 
loopholes and weaknesses that will not work and will not accomplish 
what we are promising--what some are promising--will occur if it is 
passed. I worry when people say they disagree with large portions of 
the bill, yet they are for it.
  Let's talk about some of the principles that were asserted.
  Last year, when this bill was jammed through the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, of which I am a member, I came up with the idea--actually, 
it came to me in an interesting way. I realized, why, when I offer 
amendments on enforcement and to spend more money on this or that item, 
people would accept them in committee. If you offered an amendment that 
would change policy--empower State and local law enforcement officers, 
for example, to participate--you got a push back from other policy 
matters, but they would just accept any amendment that would spend more 
money on enforcement. You ask yourself: Why is that so? That is so 
because they were not spending any money. We are the Judiciary 
Committee, an authorization committee. We cannot appropriate a dime. So 
we can authorize money for border patrol, we can authorize fencing, we 
can authorize prison systems, we can authorize an entry-exit visa 
system, but if nobody comes up with the money to pay for it, it never 
becomes law. Do you see?
  So I suggested on the question of amnesty that no amnesty be allowed 
until we have a certification by the Secretary of Homeland Security 
that the border was secure and that this would be a trigger. The 
trigger for amnesty would be a certification that the border laws were 
enforced. That was the philosophy behind the trigger amendment on which 
Senator Isakson worked so hard on the floor. It was not adopted in 
committee last year, and when we had a full debate on it, the people 
who were supporting last year's fatally flawed bill said: Oh, this goes 
to the core of the bill. We can't support this. It might be OK, but the 
coalition that put this bill together won't support it. It will cause 
it to fall apart. So they voted it down by a fairly close margin, but 
voted it down.
  So now we are told: OK, we need a trigger. So one of the principles 
of this bill is to have a trigger in it. Let me show why I think there 
are some weaknesses in that trigger and it is not as effective as it 
needs to be. As a matter of fact, it is not very powerful at all. It 
applies only to the new guest worker program, but all other amnesty 
programs will begin immediately. In other

[[Page 13402]]

words, the legalization process, the Z visas that allow people to stay 
here, will be issued before any of these steps are actually taken. See, 
we want to be sure that steps are not just promised but are actually 
taken, paid for, and implemented, because in 1986 what happened was 
amnesty was given--and they did not deny calling it amnesty in 1986--
amnesty was given on a promise of enforcement, and they never funded 
the enforcement. They just never did it. We had 3 million illegal 
people here in 1986, and we have 12 million today. So Congresses and 
the Presidents since 1986 and before 1986 have never taken these 
matters seriously and given them the priority needed to be successful.
  We have that weakness in the trigger which I mentioned. The 
legalization process will occur before any of these items are required 
to be funded and executed.
  Secondly, the trigger only requires enforcement benchmarks already in 
the works, almost accomplished. So it does not require anything new. It 
does not require one critical thing, I believe, which is a U.S. visit 
exit system. You come into the country and show your identification. 
The new system we should have and proponents suggest is in this bill 
would say you come in with your identification, you show it at the 
border, you work. When your time is up, you are supposed to exit the 
country. But there is no system to record whether anybody exits. This 
was required to have been implemented by 2005. It has been put off and 
put off. Why? Because it creates a system, I suggest, that would 
actually work. It is a key component of an honest, effective border 
control system. If a spouse comes to visit a temporary worker for 30 
days, how do we know they will ever leave? Who is going to keep up with 
this? Do people think agents are going out knocking on people's doors 
to see if their visiting spouses are still here? That is not the way 
the system is going to work. So an exit system is not part of a trigger 
requirement.
  The language we wanted and was in the Secure Fence Act that we passed 
last year requires the Department of Homeland Security to attain 
operational control of the border. That is the fundamental principle of 
the trigger from the beginning. None of that language is in this bill. 
It does not require the Secretary of Homeland Security to certify 
operational control of the border. So we don't have a very great 
trigger.
  Also, it requires under the trigger 18,000 Border Patrol agents to be 
employed--not that we hire new ones whom we plan to hire even above 
that but only the 18,000 who mostly are already there now.
  Last year, right before the election, we passed legislation that 
requires the construction of 700 miles of fencing. Will that fence ever 
get built? I suggest that my colleagues read the fine print. We see 
already the fence is being undermined. There is no trigger requirement 
that occurs. Only 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of vehicle 
barriers are part of the trigger. These have been in the works and some 
fencing already exists, and that should be there. But that leaves about 
300 miles not part of the contingency, and we don't know if the money 
will ever be there for this 300 miles which we authorized just last 
fall. Do my colleagues follow me? Just because we authorized fencing 
last fall does not mean it will ever be built. If you want to say that 
is a shell game, I have to agree. It is done all the time around here. 
It is particularly done on immigration matters.
  Bed space: We currently have 27,500 detention beds. What does a 
trigger require before the amnesty process can go forward? It requires 
27,500, what we already have. But the bill, in a separate section of 
this legislation, would require 20,000 additional beds to be built 
because we need them. It is an essential part of gaining control of the 
border. Mr. President, 20,000 is not that large a number in the scheme 
of things, but it can get us to a tipping point where the border can be 
brought under control. But that is not part of the trigger. There are 
other matters in the trigger that are not available.
  I will note this: If you want to be dubious about the intent of the 
drafters of this legislation to follow through on some of the things 
they promise, let me tell you how the bill words it. It is filled with 
phrases such as ``subject to the availability of appropriations'' and 
``authorized to be appropriated.'' Those words are used in the 
legislation 38 times--``authorized to be appropriated.'' You can 
authorize a fence in this legislation, but this is not an 
appropriations bill. Unless the Congress comes along and funds it, it 
will never be built. Worse than that, it has ``subject to the 
availability of appropriations.'' That is a real suggestion by 
somebody, I would argue, who never intends to see that section funded 
appropriately. That was one of the principles.
  I am disappointed in the trigger. We were told we would have a real 
temporary worker program this year, one that would fit the needs of 
businesses, and they do have needs, and the agriculture community, and 
they do have needs, and we would create one that would actually work. 
But I am afraid this one is set to fail. It is better than last year's 
bill in a number of ways. Let me tell you how it is better, and that is 
the good news.
  Last year, the temporary worker program allowed an individual to come 
to this country as a temporary worker for 3 years, and they could bring 
their spouses and children with them. Then they could extend that 3 
years another 3 years, another 3 years, another 3 years--I think 
indefinitely. Mr. President, 3 years, 3 years, 3 years, as long as you 
live, and your spouses and children can be here, and any children born 
here would be American citizens at birth. The first year the person was 
here, they could apply through their employer for a green card, 
permanent legal residence, which would put them on the pathway to 
citizenship within 5 years. That was a temporary guest worker program.
  I say that to my colleagues because we need to be alert to the fact 
that just because it says we have a trigger, just because we have a 
temporary worker program, when you read the fine print, it may not be 
what it appears to be. So that was a disaster. That wasn't a temporary 
worker program at all. After a family has been here for 8, 10, 12 
years, their children are in junior high school. Who is going to come 
and get them and send them home? That is a program which had no chance 
whatsoever. But the sponsors went around for months saying we have 
created a temporary guest worker program. That was not so, and I am 
glad eventually that came to be exposed for what it was.
  This year's bill says, as part of the principles, that we would have 
a temporary worker program where the temporary workers did not bring 
families. That changes the dynamics dramatically because if they don't 
bring families, they have an incentive to go home. If they bring their 
families, their incentive is to put roots down and stay. It is not a 
temporary worker program, in my view.
  So how did it come out in real fine print? In fine print, what we 
understand is it is not a 3-year program but a 2-year program; that 20 
percent of the temporary workers can bring their families, and of the 
remaining 80 percent, their families can visit up to 30 days. Well, 
let's say that your spouse is pregnant and you are working here 
temporarily. You could ask that spouse to come to America for a visit 
and have good health care and have a child born who would have dual 
citizenship, or maybe they would stay in the United States and the 
child can be a citizen because of birthright citizenship. There are 
some problems with this.
  I am troubled by the 2-year situation and the way it works. You come 
for 2 years, you would go home for 1 year; you come back for another 2 
years, you would go home for a year; come back a third time for 2 
years, and then you could never come back again.
  What we have in the agriculture community is circularity, where 
people come for 8, 10, 11 months a year, maybe, without their families, 
and they work for a season, maybe 8 months, and go home. They are based 
and their home is among their family and their kin in the town or city 
or village they grew up in. They go to their church in their 
neighborhood.

[[Page 13403]]

  So that is the way that worked, and I was hoping, or thought we would 
move in that direction. But, no, it looks like it is a 2-year deal, 
where you can bring your spouse to visit for 30 days, and 20 percent 
would be able to have their spouses with them the entire stay. They 
have to post a small bond. But that is not a defining event, I think.
  What about the numbers? When I first asked, as they moved the 
PowerPoint presentation around, how many guest workers, temporary 
workers was contemplated in this program, I was told about 200,000 by 
an official in the Bush administration. Well, what do we have now? We 
have 400,000 to 600,000 workers a year who come up for 2 years at a 
time and go home for 1 year in between. But if you have 400,000 in this 
year and they stay for 2 years, and next year you have another 400,000 
to go next year, then in years 2 and 3 you are at 800,000, except there 
is an escalating clause in there that will probably take it well above 
900,000--follow me?--instead of 200,000 or 400,000, the real mechanism 
involved in the temporary guest worker program is to create numbers 
that amount to almost a million guest workers.
  Now, these guest workers are different from the 12 million who will 
be given legal status here. It is different from the 1 million to 2 
million flow of people who will be coming into the country on the 
citizenship track. This would be 1 million here as guest workers. So 
you see, we have to get these numbers straight. How many people are 
being let in by this bill? We are having a hard time getting it out.
  Remember, the bill was only introduced last night. A staff offered 
draft copy of it was produced Saturday morning. So who knows for sure? 
Who can say for certain what this actually means? I tell you, we intend 
to look at it, and we intend to make sure the Members of the Senate and 
the American people understand how big an impact this is.
  What we do know, from last year's bill, even after Senator Bingaman 
offered two amendments that passed, and I offered one to reduce the 
overall numbers, it dropped from 80 million to 200 million over 20 
years. Let me go back and repeat that. Last year's bill, as introduced 
on the floor, the McCain-Kennedy bill, would have allowed into our 
country 78 million to 200 million people in 20 years. Now, we only have 
300 million in America at this time. Do you understand the significance 
of that?
  I don't know if they knew those numbers or somebody was trying to 
pull a fast one, but it was breathtaking. We came up with those 
numbers. The Heritage Foundation was doing an independent analysis, and 
they came up with very similar numbers. So Senator Bingaman offered two 
amendments and I offered one that passed and it reduced the number to 
53 million. Real progress; right? Not so fast.
  The current rate of immigration over 20 years in our country is 18.9 
million, maybe closer to 20 million. So it was at 53 million, which is 
2\1/2\ times the current rate of immigration. So I don't think the 
American people who thought we were reforming immigration ever 
understood that the real plan was to increase legal immigration by 2\1/
2\ times.
  So I am worried about the numbers in this year's bill, is all I am 
saying. We are going to look at it. I haven't been able to figure it 
out yet, but my super staff is getting close, and we are going to keep 
working on it. But that needs to be acknowledged. I think there is 
going to be push-back on this huge number of temporary workers, which 
appears to me to be three times what the administration suggested to 
me, this year, would be an appropriate number. Of course, the President 
is bent on having workers for everybody who needs one.
  The 2 years, the 2 years, and the 2 years, let us say a person came 
as a temporary worker and they worked 2 years and went home; worked 2 
years and went home; worked 2 years and went home. There are bad things 
that occur from that program as a practical matter. Is the employer 
going to depend on this person every 2 years, when that worker has to 
go home? That is not practical to me. Then they are finished. They, 
perhaps, had no desire to live in America permanently or become a 
citizen of America but wanted to be a temporary worker. Yet now they 
are put in a position where they have to apply for a green card and 
citizenship and try to compete on this permanent citizenship track so 
they can keep working. For people who may have no desire to apply for a 
green card, they would have to, under this system. So I think it 
creates a magnet for dual citizenship in a way that is not necessary.
  I think it would complicate the life of a business to have this break 
in their employment. I would like to see a system, myself, in which a 
person could come 10 months a year in America, or less--they may want 
to work less--and they would have a good ID so they could go back and 
forth to visit their family or their home as many times as they chose. 
They would go home each year for several months and could come back the 
next year, if they chose and if the employer wanted and if they were 
certified to come back and hadn't been convicted of a crime or done 
anything else that would disqualify them. That, to me, makes more 
sense. Maybe the drafters have a better idea than I do on it--I don't 
think so at this point.
  Now, one of the issues we talked about in last year's debate, and I 
emphasize it because nobody had even considered it, is why shouldn't we 
go to a merit-based system--a system that is skill based--where we 
would have people come into this country based on their opportunity for 
success here, based on their ability to flourish in our economy? What 
we learned was that Canada does that. Canada spent several years of 
national discussion, and then their Parliament got together and decided 
the question. They passed a law that said to the immigration department 
in Canada, you work with our economics department and you set up an 
immigration system for our country that says 60 percent of the people 
who would enter our country would enter based on skills and merit and 
education that we think are important for Canada because we believe our 
immigration policies should serve the national Canadian interest. It 
should make Canada better. We believe this is the right policy.
  That was done and is being executed today. I met, in my office last 
year, with the gentleman who was the director of that program, and he 
explained to me that it was very popular. They like it in Canada. We 
had never even discussed it last year. I tried to get a hearing in the 
Judiciary Committee on it. No, they didn't have time. Senator Mike 
Enzi, who was chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee, agreed to have a hearing on it, and we did that. We had 
experts testify on that and very little negative was said about it. The 
witnesses at various hearings we had all said an immigration policy, in 
their opinion, should serve the national interest, and a skill-based 
program serves the national interest. That is why they did it.
  Australia does the same thing. Australia has 60 percent enter on 
merit; New Zealand has a similar program; the United Kingdom is looking 
at it; and I believe the Netherlands and other countries are 
considering more movement in that area. The developed world is moving 
in that area, except the United States. Only 20 percent of the people 
who enter our country with green cards get those permanent resident 
green cards based on skills--only 20 percent. Sixty percent, almost, 
get their permanent residence based on family.
  Now, no one disputes, and this bill certainly doesn't, and neither do 
I, that if we give permanent residence to anyone, to a man, to come to 
America, he should be able to bring his wife and his minor children. 
But if you choose to come to America--you tell me, I say to my church 
friends--tell me why, if you choose to leave your extended family and 
come to America and establish a new life, what right do you have to 
demand that your aging parents should come with you? What right do you 
have, what moral right do you have to demand that?
  That is what we are doing today. Parents are allowed to come, as well 
as

[[Page 13404]]

adult children, as well as brothers and sisters--the siblings. So under 
the current system of chain migration, a person comes to America and 
they get a green card, or become a citizen, and they are able then to 
bring their aging parents or bring their brothers and sisters, who are 
then able to bring their wives and their children. That is how we get 
nearly 60 percent of immigration in America not based on skills.
  That is the policy question I thought had been established when we 
adopted the new framework that became the basis for the new bill that 
was introduced late last night. Does the new bill get us there? It does 
adopt a point system. I have to say I was excited about that because I 
believe so strongly that was the right direction for us to go. I was 
excited about that. But as I read the bill, I was very dispirited.
  For example, what happens in the years 2008 to 2012 if this bill 
becomes law? Skill-based immigration will remain capped at the current 
level of 140,000 for the first 5 years until 2012. Even out of this 
140,000, 10,000 will be carved out for temporary, low-skilled workers. 
I am not talking about temporary workers now but people on a track to 
citizenship--green card, permanent residence, and then citizenship. The 
140,000 green cards we have set aside for that track, they have taken 
10,000 of that for the temporary workers who come without a merit-based 
system.
  So there is a step taken in the bill to reduce chain migration, and 
it reduces it, it appeared, immediately and even back I think 2 years. 
But it says that if you were an applicant to come into our country for 
a permanent residence, as part of a chain migration application, you 
are considered to be a backlogged applicant. As a backlogged applicant, 
this bill says we are going to give you the opportunity to come and to 
get permanent residence in America, even though people who applied 
after a certain date would not get to have that provision applied to 
them. This will free up some numbers that will not be coming in on 
chain migration, but the theory was the green card numbers would be 
shifted to a skill-based, point-based system like Canada's. That is how 
you get there, and this bill does attempt to do that. Unfortunately, it 
takes a lot of time to get there.
  Under this bill, they will take 8 years of those saved green card 
numbers and apply them to the backlog. There are about 3 million 
backlogged chain migration petitions, and each one amounts to about 2.2 
persons because they could bring a wife or a child with them, sometimes 
3 or 4 children. If you are in the backlog as a brother of a citizen 
and you have been in the backlog for several years, then you get to 
come with your family--not just yourself as a brother, but you get to 
bring your family--in the next 8 years. So we think it will total up to 
6 to 8 million people who are in the backlog. We are not moving to a 
merit-based system any time soon. Actually, it is going to be 8 years 
out before it really kicks in. I don't know what will happen in 8 
years. I have grown, in my 10 years in this Senate, to be somewhat 
worried about what we are likely to do when that happens.
  I salute my colleagues for making a decision that appears to shift us 
to a more healthy view of immigration that will be more likely to serve 
our national interest. But I am disappointed that it is not going to 
really take effect for 8 years. That is so long, I am not sure I can 
buy that as a legitimate compromise.
  My colleagues say: We did the best we can do. Jeff, there are things 
in the bill I don't like. I would like to have it take place right now.
  Why don't we make it happen right now? Why wait 8 years? We don't 
have a right to offer amendments and fix that? We need to think about 
it.
  Another thing is, in Canada they have, as I said, 60 percent based on 
skills. We think the numbers in the United States--from 20 to 22 
percent based on skills--will not exceed 40 percent. In fact, Senator 
Kennedy, who really opposed this part of the provision, estimates it 
would only be 30 percent. That is not enough. We need to look at these 
numbers. If we don't have a proposal which would carry us 50 percent or 
above, I don't think we have made the kind of real progress in that 
area that we could.
  Also, the system is going to skew, again, to the temporary workers. 
If you are here as a temporary worker, you get 6 to 8 points for adult 
sons and daughters who might apply under the point system, 4 points for 
brothers and sisters of citizens and permanent residents, and 2 extra 
points if you apply for a chain migration category between May 1, 2005, 
and now. So a significant number of points are given based on family, I 
am concerned about that.
  Points are going to be given not just for higher skills but for high-
demand occupations. That is what the temporary program is for, the 
high-demand occupations. I think the permanent track to citizenship 
should clearly shift to a more skill-based system. But we are going to 
give a lot of this skill-based system personnel--they will get 16 
points on the point scale if they are in a high-demand occupation. 
These could be fairly low-skilled jobs. You could be in the service 
industry or things of that nature, low-skill personnel and things of 
that nature, or food processing. That is an undermining of the 
principle of moving to a merit-based, skill-based system. That worries 
me, that we are not getting there sufficiently on the point system. It 
is just frustrating to see that.
  Why is that point-based system important in the long run? Just 
because Canada has gone through this process and has reached that 
conclusion? No.
  Mr. Robert Rector is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a 
premier think tank, a conservative think tank but one of the most 
respected in America. Mr. Rector has for well over 20 years, I suppose, 
been recognized as one of the most knowledgeable persons in America on 
welfare and social policy. He is widely recognized as the architect of 
the highly successful major welfare reform that was done a number of 
years ago. Eventually, after 2 vetoes, President Clinton signed it, and 
it became a very popular program that reduced child poverty and created 
a system where lots of people went out and found work. The welfare 
office became an employment office where people can be counseled on how 
to get work, and people are now out being very proud to be 
breadwinners, bringing home money--more than they ever thought possible 
sometimes--just because they got out of the welfare trap and into 
workplace. That is what Mr. Rector was part of.
  At a press conference yesterday, he was very strong in his view that 
we have a big problem with low-skilled immigrants. He talked about some 
things you don't like to talk about so much, but it is just a fact, and 
all these other countries have had to deal with it. When you are low 
skilled, have low education, you tend to collect more from the 
government than you put in. That is a big problem. What he concluded 
was that the necessary fiscal deficit for a house which is headed by a 
person without a high school degree is $19,000 a year. He put his 
pencil on it. He calculated it out. I don't know whether that figure is 
correct, I didn't calculate the numbers myself but that is what he said 
yesterday. This is Mr. Rector. He noted that $19,000 per year in 
benefits could buy each one of those families a new automobile every 
year.
  He calculated that, over a lifetime, the numbers are worse, that we 
should calculate the numbers not in the first 10 years where they would 
be artificially low but calculate them over a lifetime. He calculated 
that if we pass this bill, the immigrant households headed by non-high 
school graduates would take out of the U.S. Treasury $2.3 trillion more 
than they pay in over their lifetime. That is the group which would be 
in the 12 million who would be legalized.
  There are reasons for that. People with education, with language 
skills, who have skills and talents America needs, who apply in a 
point-based merit system, who have any college at all when they come, 
tend to do very well in America. In fact, the numbers show that if you 
just had 2 years of college, you tend to do very well and pay much more 
in taxes than you would ever take out in taxes. We have to be careful 
that our business friends understand that somebody is picking up the

[[Page 13405]]

tab if they have low-skilled, low-wage workers. It may not be the 
employer, but somebody is paying. It is the Social Security system, it 
is the Medicare system, it is the American taxpayers who pay.
  I see my good friend from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield such time as the Senator wishes.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. The Senator is very kind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I wanted to point out that last year my colleague 
rightly pointed to a serious problem with last year's bill dealing with 
chain migration. I recall the Senator coming to the floor and 
explaining what had not been well understood until then, which is the 
fact that, as people were acquiring legal permanent resident status, 
then they would also have the opportunity to bring family members. That 
would result in a huge problem. We have 12 million illegals. If those 
12 million are somehow legalized and then they can also chain migrate 
their families, we would end up with a problem manyfold what it would 
be otherwise.
  In this bill, we tried mightily to end chain migration, and I think 
we have for the most part. I want to say to the Senator from Alabama, 
it is because of his good work last year in pointing out that flaw in 
the bill that I think now we have corrected and reversed course in what 
I think is, by some, a real problem in terms of family reunification. 
But at the end of the day, I think it is the right thing for America.
  If we allow those who are here, after a probationary period, after 
payment of fines, and ultimately after returning to their home country, 
to legally apply for readmittance, that then chain migration would not 
be permitted, I think that is a fair tradeoff and is at the heart of 
what is called by some the ``grand bargain,'' a massive coming together 
we had. I want to give the Senator very much due credit for having a 
real hand in what it is that is at the heart of this new agreement.
  I realize the Senator may have many other issues of concern. I hope, 
as we go forward and talk about them, we will alleviate some of those 
concerns. I think one of the things that has happened is it is a 
massive bill. Here we have it now still not in printed form as we go 
through it. I compliment the majority leader for giving us the extra 
time so we all have a chance to get into what is in the details of the 
bill.
  There has been a lot of emotion and a lot of conversation and a lot 
of it not very well based on what is in the bill. The trigger is in the 
bill, and I know Senator Isakson from Georgia will be speaking to that 
this afternoon. It is fundamental. Nothing happens until the border is 
secure.
  I wish to give the Senator credit where credit is due for a good step 
along the way.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say to Senator Martinez that I thank him for that, 
but he was one of the people who stood firm on this issue of a more 
merit-based, competitive system of immigration, like Canada. Without 
his leadership, I know it would not have happened. In fact, his 
personnel leadership was pivotal in a number of areas in this 
legislation that made it better than it would otherwise have been. I 
appreciate that.
  My concern on the bill is that by saying the backlog gets approved, 
we delay about 8 years moving to the full implementation of a merit 
system. I know, when you are in a meeting and you have to negotiate 
with people--I know Senator Kennedy didn't want to do this at all.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Right.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You had to reach a compromise. But the compromise of 
waiting 8 years is troubling to me. I like the move. I thank the 
Senator for his leadership, and that is the point I have tried to make 
this morning.
  I thank Senator Martinez. The Senator himself is an immigrant from 
Cuba and has risen to serve as a member of the Cabinet of the President 
of the United States and now an outstanding Member of this Senate. I am 
proud to know him. I am also proud his wife is from my hometown of 
Mobile, AL. She is wonderful also.
  As I understand the chain migration matter, in fact, it does end 
chain migration mostly, but it does allow 40,000 parents to come each 
year. There are some restrictions on it, but 40,000 parents. So those 
40,000 more elderly parents--by the way, Canada gives points for youth. 
They believe Canada benefits from a younger rather than an older 
immigrant.
  But those parents who come--we have to be honest with ourselves are 
not going to be net gain like a young skilled person. But that was the 
compromise they pounded away at. Some said family reunification, we 
have to have family reunification. So instead of eliminating aging 
parents, they agreed to cap them at about half the number we currently 
have of parents who get to come each year.
  But what I want to ask you to think about is, here is a young man in 
Honduras who went to high school, graduated, maybe was valedictorian of 
his class, taken English, utilizes television and radio to improve his 
English, has 2 years of college. He applies to get in the United 
States.
  He wants to come here very badly. Maybe he has a distant cousin here 
or maybe he has read about America. Maybe he wants to come here and 
work and go to college and earn a degree and be a doctor. I don't know 
what is in that young man's mind. It is a zero-sum game.
  If you let the parent in, you deny someone such as that the ability 
to come in on a more meritorious basis. That is why this is not an easy 
call and why we need to be clear about this. Every time we allow a 
chain migrant or an aging parent to take an immigration slot, we are 
denying someone who deeply wants to come, who could be selected on 
merit from the large number out there who want to come to America, that 
would be more successful and flourish here. That is all I am saying.
  We hear stories about familial reunification. I know that is nice to 
talk about. That could be important to an immigrant who becomes a 
citizen and wants to also bring their extended family. It might be 
important to them personally. But the real question is, what we have to 
ask is: Is this important to the national interest? What is in the best 
national interest? The best national interest, I believe, and other 
nations of the developed world have concluded, requires a movement 
where you can bring your wife and children, but you don't get to bring 
extended family in.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes prior to the recess.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All right. I will use that and then reserve the 
remainder of the time.
  Another principle of the PowerPoint presentation was the question of 
giving legal status to persons currently illegally in the country 
through a new visa. But it was stated as one of the principles that 
there would be no special path to citizenship. That was a direct quote. 
``No special path to citizenship.''
  However, the bill clearly creates a system whereby current people 
here illegally are treated differently, better, than those who tried to 
come to the country lawfully.
  That is a principle I think we have all said we don't want to breach. 
In fact, the PowerPoint principle about any new immigration bill stated 
that would be one of the principles. This bill is not jackpot amnesty, 
as some would say; but I think it is a form of amnesty, however you 
want to define it.
  I have not tried to use that word too much because I am not sure what 
it means to anybody. If I use the word amnesty, it tends to mean that 
you allowed somebody who came here illegally to stay permanently. That 
is a form of amnesty. I mean, normally they would be apprehended and 
removed. That is what the law would require.
  But whatever amnesty is, I have concluded that the principle we 
should adhere to is, that if someone did come to our country illegally, 
and we have now not enforced the law as we would expect the law to be 
enforced but are going to allow them to stay here in our

[[Page 13406]]

country, come out of the shadows to have a legal status, that we can do 
that, but we should not provide to that illegal entrant every single 
benefit we provide the persons who wait in line and come lawfully.
  I see no reason to do that. That is what we did in 1986. The speeches 
were crystal clear: Never again. This is the last amnesty. Because 
those people in 1986 understood that if amnesty became the rule, we 
would totally undermine respect for our legal system. So here we are, 
20 years later, granting another amnesty. I think we need to maintain 
some clarity so there is a difference in status of those who come 
illegally.
  Now, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, gave a definition. He 
made a statement that is valuable. ``One thing is for sure, if this 
bill gives them any preferential treatment towards citizenship over 
people who came into the country in the proper way, that is a non-
starter.''
  I would go further. I think we can give some kind of legal status and 
certain benefits to people who come illegally, but I believe they 
should not be given benefits that lead to citizenship--that powerful, 
wonderful thing, citizenship in the United States--based on an illegal 
act. I do not think we should. I think we should say forever--in 1986, 
we said the truth then--you come illegally, you are not going to 
benefit. We are not going to do this again. We should do that.
  Now, if they have children born here, the children can become 
citizens. But there will be detriments to having come illegally that 
would be permanent, that are not going to be wiped out. That is my 
personal view. We will see how it goes.
  I would say, with regard to the question of moving to citizenship, 
there are at least five preferential treatments toward citizenship 
given to the illegal alien population by this bill. Preferential 
treatment.
  First, illegal aliens who rushed across the border between January 7, 
2004--the date contained in last year's bill--and January 1, 2007, this 
January, will be eligible for amnesty. This includes illegal aliens who 
have been here for a mere 5 months. They would be eligible for the 
amnesty, be eligible to be put on track for citizenship, even if they 
came into our country last December 31. Remember, we called out the 
National Guard, the President did, after the American people put the 
heat on, called out the National Guard. We are building fences now, not 
enough, but we are building barriers. We are increasing agents and we 
are saying: The border is closed. But we turn around and have a bill 
that says that somebody who got past the National Guard, got past the 
Border Patrol, got around the fence, is now going to be put on a path, 
guaranteed path to citizenship.
  Now, I don't think that is good public policy. That does not breed 
respect for the law. I was a Federal prosecutor for nearly 15 years. I 
am telling you, if you don't enforce a law, it is undermined and 
undermines respect for the Government in general, frankly.
  I will not go any further. I think our time is about finished. I 
would thank my colleagues for their attention to this bill. I hope they 
will be reading it. I hope the research we do might be helpful to some 
of you as you work on it and try to decide how you should handle this 
very important piece of legislation. We need to do something. We need 
to do something that is good. We need to pass a bill. I guess no bill 
will be perfect, but we do not need to pass bills with serious flaws in 
them, those that undermine the principles that any effective 
immigration system should be founded on.
  I will have extra time. We will talk about that later and talk about 
some other things I have.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________