To modify the conditions under which an H-2C nonimmigrant may apply for an employment-based immigrant visa.

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006

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

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

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:

Kyl amendment No. 4027, to make certain aliens ineligible
for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status or
Deferred Mandatory Departure status.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we made good progress yesterday.
We just had a brief discussion in the well of the Senate. I believe we
are prepared to proceed.
I ask unanimous consent that we next take up the Kyl-Cornyn
amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order, with 30 minutes
equally divided.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the
amendments beyond Kyl-Cornyn be as follows--Senator Sessions, Senator
Vitter, Senator Obama, and Senator Inhofe. I ask unanimous consent that
sequence be agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the manager yield for a question?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. How soon does the manager anticipate voting on Kyl-
Cornyn?
Mr. SPECTER. At 10:01.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may we proceed with the final argument on
Kyl-Cornyn?

Amendment No. 4027

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is pending. Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas has 15 minutes.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it looks like we are beginning to make
some progress. About 4 weeks ago, this amendment was introduced in its
original form, and unfortunately debate was derailed. We were
unsuccessful in moving on for further amendments and debate.
Fortunately, it looks as if things have gotten back on track. We are
starting to see votes and debate on amendments. I don't necessarily
like the way all of the votes are turning out, but this is the Senate
and majority rules and I accept that.
All of us who are interested in comprehensive immigration reform want
to see this bill continue to move, to have amendments laid down,
debated, and have them voted on. I am very pleased that it appears that
we are very close to having, if not unanimous agreement, at least
majority support on a bipartisan basis for the amendment that Senator
Kyl and I laid down about a month ago and which has now been modified
slightly to bring more people on board.
This amendment, quite simply, is designed to make sure that convicted
felons and people who have committed at least three misdemeanors do not
get the benefit of the legalization track contained in the underlying
bill, whatever it may be. There will be other amendments later on that
perhaps won't share the same sort of bipartisan and majority support.
But this one at least seems to have gathered a solid group of Senators
to support it.
In addition to convicted felons, those who have committed at least
three misdemeanors would not be given the benefit of earned
legalization under the bill. It would also exclude absconders. By that,
I mean people who have actually had their day in court and have been
ordered deported from the country but have simply gone underground,
hunkered down in the hope they might be able to stay.
There have been some motions made regarding this amendment for waiver
by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security for
extraordinary circumstances. For example, if someone is able to
establish that they didn't actually get notified, then as a matter of
fundamental due process considerations they ought to be able to revisit
that and to show that they did not get notice of the removal
proceedings. We agreed that would be a fair basis to waive this
provision.
Finally, it also appears that the other basis for waiver would be if
the alien's failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances
beyond the control of the alien--a very narrow exception; and, finally,
if the alien's departure from the United States would result in extreme
hardship to the alien's spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen of
the United States or an alien lawfully permitted to have permanent
status.
We move it in the right direction. It is a fundamentally fair and
commonsense amendment. I am pleased to support it and announce what
appears to be a growing consensus that it should be accepted.
I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from
Arizona may need.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I would
like to point out that we spent the better part of yesterday
negotiating with Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn, along with Senator
Kennedy and others, a group of us. We have been trying to modify the
original Kyl-Cornyn amendment so that it would be broadly acceptable. I
think we have succeeded, thanks to the goodwill of all parties
concerned.
Fundamentally, the purpose, which we are all in agreement with, is we
don't want people who are convicted felons or criminals guilty of
crimes to be eligible for citizenship in this country. We have enough
problems without opening up that avenue. Yet, at the same time, we
didn't want to go too far to exclude people from eligibility for
citizenship who, frankly, may have committed incidental crimes or the
crime was associated with their attempt to enter this country.
For example, in order to obtain asylum, when people flee oppressive
and repressive regimes in which their lives are at risk, and they had
to use a bogus or counterfeit document in order to expedite their
entrance into this country, of course, we don't think that should make
them ineligible for citizenship or application for citizenship.
I think we have reached a careful balance. There are categories of
people under conditions of extreme hardship or danger who are seeking
asylum and would be exempted, but at the same time the thrust of the
Kyl-Cornyn amendment, which is the prevention of people who have
committed felonies and numbers of misdemeanors and other crimes would
not be eligible for a path to citizenship as outlined in the
legislation that would apply to the others who have not committed
crimes.
I am aware there is some concern about this on both sides of this
issue. I want to assure everyone that this is the product of a long,
arduous series of negotiations and discussions among all involved in
this issue.
I hope there is an understanding that we have come up with what most
of us think is a reasonable compromise to address very legitimate
concerns on both sides. People who are fleeing oppression may have used
a bogus document, and on the other side of the coin, obviously, someone
who has committed

[[Page S4649]]

serious crimes or a series of misdemeanors we would not want to have
them eligible for citizenship.
I thank Senators Kyl, Cornyn, Kennedy, and others who have actively
negotiated and come up with what we agree is a reasonable compromise.
By the way, that is the trademark of the progress of this
legislation. That gives me optimism that we will be able to
successfully conclude it in a reasonable period of time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from
South Carolina needs.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like for a moment to showcase the
staff of all Senators involved who have been working for hours to try
to get this right. It is important to get this right. For me, this is
sort of the model for where we go from here as a Nation and how we
address immigration issues. Senator Kennedy and his staff have been
terrific.
The goal, as Senator McCain said, was to make sure that our country
is assimilating people who potentially add value to our country. If you
are a thug, if you are a crook, if you are a murderer or a rapist or a
bunco artist or a felon, you don't really add any value, and the only
person you can blame is yourself. So I have no sympathy for your cause
because your misconduct, your mean, hateful, cheating behavior has
disqualified you--and too bad. You don't add value.
With three misdemeanors, as defined in the bill and as we have it
under Kyl-Cornyn, you have had one chance, two chances, and the third
time you are out. You have nobody to blame but yourself.
I think every Democrat and every Republican should come to grips with
the idea that when we give people a second chance--whatever you want to
call this process we are about to engage upon--there are certain people
who do not get that second chance based upon what they did, either once
or three times.
I think that is a good addition to this bill. It expands the base
bill, and Kyl-Cornyn has done a good service to the body in that
regard. But there is another side of this story. It is a group of
people who haven't committed crimes other than violating immigration
laws--nonviolent crimes or who, as Senator McCain said, is one step
ahead of a death squad in some bad part of the world and have come here
to start a new life.
On the civil side, there is a group that split--the absconders. If
you have been given an immigration deportation order and you just
ignore it, then you are not subject to being eligible either because
you have had your day in court. You lose and there is no use retrying
your case.
However, if you fall into a category of people who had no knowledge
or notice of the order for deportation, then it is not fair to hold you
accountable to comply with something you didn't know about. So we are
going to look at that case anew.
Within that population of people who have been issued deportation
orders, some of the people we are talking about come to our country one
step ahead of death squads or repressive governments. A humanitarian
argument could be made in a few cases that we are going to listen to.
For that small group of people, we will have a waiver requirement. We
will waive the ineligibility if to deport you would reenforce a system
that would have led to a tragedy.
If you had not gotten into the program using fraudulent documents--if
I had to choose between my family's demise or forging a document to get
away from a oppressive government, I would forge the document. I am
willing to give those folks a chance to make the case that they add
value.
On the humanitarian side, if you have a child or a member of a family
who is an American citizen and you receive a deportation order, I am
willing to allow a case to be made that it is not in the best interests
of this country or justice to break up that family. There is a limited
class of cases. That is just as important to me as dealing with the
criminal because if you can't deal with hard cases that have some a
sympathetic element, then you have hardened your heart as a body.
I don't mind telling a criminal: Too bad, you have nobody to blame
but yourself. But I am proud of the body listening to people who
deserve to be listened to and creating a waiver process that will bring
about a just result and to allow people to add value to the country if
they can prove they can.
Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn have been great to work with. I hope
we get nearly 100 votes. I say to Senator Kennedy's staff, it would not
have been possible without you.
This body should be proud of this product because you break people
into groups because of what they did in their individual circumstances.
To me, that has been part of immigration reform. One size does not fit
all.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from Illinois is
recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Kennedy, Kyl, and Cornyn,
as well as Senator McCain and those who are responsible for putting
this together.
This is a dramatic improvement over the original version of this
amendment.
I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from South
Carolina. I think of these laws and amendments in human terms that we
deal with every day in our Senate offices. Almost 80 percent of all of
the case work requests for help that we receive in my offices in
Illinois relate to immigration. Every day, we have new situations and
new family challenges that we are forced to confront. Some of them are
heartbreaking.
I think specifically of the Benitez family in Chicago. Mr. Benitez is
an American citizen. He works hard. He has lived in this country for
many years. He is a wonderful man. I see him in downtown Chicago
regularly when I am going around. It is always good to see such a fine
man who has worked so hard and who really believes in his family. His
wife came to this country on a visa, overstayed the visa, married him,
and continued to live in the United States undocumented. They have four
children. Mr. Benitez and his four children are all American citizens.

The mother of his undocumented wife died in Mexico. She went back to
Mexico to the funeral of her mother. When she came back into the
country, she was stopped at the border. Because of that, she has had an
outstanding order of deportation. She made it back to the United States
in an undocumented status with an outstanding order for deportation.
Is it justice in this case that this woman would somehow be deported
from the United States at this moment if her husband and four children,
all American citizens, are living here? They are good people, working
hard, paying their taxes, speaking English, doing everything we ask of
them. That is not fair.
We have added in this amendment an opportunity for Mrs. Benitez to
appeal for a humanitarian waiver for family circumstances. The language
of this amendment bears repeating so the intent is clear. We give to
those aliens who would be subject to deportation an opportunity to
petition in cases of extreme hardship if the alien spouse, parent, or
child is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence.
We have created a family unification, humanitarian waiver,
nonreviewable, but at least it gives Mrs. Benitez and people like her a
chance to say: Let me keep my family together. Let me stay in the
United States. Give me a chance to become legal.
That is sensible. That makes good sense. I am glad Senators Cornyn
and Kyl have agreed to this and we have come together. There are some
people who will not be protected, those subject to orders of
deportation who are currently single and do not have any relatives
within the United States who would qualify under these provisions. This
may not apply to them. But certainly for the family circumstance I just
described, this humanitarian waiver is on all fours. This affects these
families in a very positive way and gives them the chance they have
been praying for for so long.
I commend Senator Kennedy and all who brought this together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

[[Page S4650]]

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will note that only 3 minutes
remain. There was 15 minutes per side, and the time remaining is 3
minutes on the Democratic side.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator from Texas yield me a
couple of minutes on his time?
Mr. CORNYN. I would be happy to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, just so the membership has a good understanding of
where we are, I will summarize this provision. I thank Senator Cornyn
and Senator Kyl for working with us, and Senator Graham and Senator
McCain for their great help and assistance, and my wonderful assistant,
Esther, for all of her good work. Senator Durbin has illustrated the
human terms which are involved in this issue as well.
Let me very quickly point out what the language provides. People
should understand now what the sense of this whole proposal is about.
We want to keep those who can harm us, the criminal element, out of the
United States or for the consideration of being able to adjust status
and be able to continue to work and live here. Those who can benefit
the United States ought to be able to remain.
This is what we were attempting to do with this particular language.
That is more complicated than it might seem.
Effectively, the Kyl-Cornyn amendment would make the various classes
of aliens ineligible for the earned legalization program: Any person
who is issued a removal order, failed to deport, or deported and
subsequently returned; any person who was ordered to leave the country
under the visa waiver program is subject to expedited removal; any
person who fails to depart under a voluntary departure agreement; any
person convicted of a serious crime inside or outside the United
States; any person who has been convicted of a felony, or three
misdemeanors.
That is the operative aspect of the amendment. The compromise reached
yesterday strengthens the waiver so that aliens under the final orders
of removal will still be eligible for earned legalization if they did
not receive a notice of their immigration hearing, obviously, through
no fault of their own--we know what the agency itself has missed, as
the GAO report indicated--or it is established they failed to appear at
their hearing because of exceptional circumstances, which are certainly
understandable; or, three, that they can establish extreme hardship to
their spouse or child or parent who was a U.S. citizen or a lawful
permanent resident. Senator Durbin gave the excellent examples of that
provision. Those are the kinds of examples we are all familiar with in
the Senate.
The waivers are available to immigrants who entered without
inspection or those who fell out of status or who used false documents
but not to criminal aliens or aggregated felons. We believe the waiver
will cover many of the current undocumented who otherwise would be
excluded under the original Kyl-Cornyn amendment.
We believe it is important progress. It is not the way, certainly,
some Members would have drafted this proposal, but we understand the
concerns that have been expressed by the proponents. We believe this is
language which will for all intents and purposes treat individuals
fairly, welcome those who should be welcome and exclude those who
should be excluded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent Senator Landrieu be added as a
cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will take a moment, before we vote to again
thank the folks I thanked last night: Senator Kennedy; Senator McCain;
my colleague, Senator Cornyn, who worked on this amendment for a long
time; and Senator Lindsey Graham, among others, for working together to
arrive at a consensus on how this amendment should be drafted, to
achieve the things the Senator from Massachusetts was just talking
about.
We all agree on the significant benefits that can result from
legislation of this kind, including, potentially, citizenship, for a
lot of people. It should be limited to those who came here and
otherwise worked honestly in this country, and it should never be
available to those who have deliberately abused our laws, our process,
or been convicted of serious crimes. As a result of this amendment, it
will make certain that benefits of the legislation, however they are
ultimately defined, are not available to that class of people we do not
want to count as fellow citizens when this is all over with.
I hope my colleagues will join in voting yes on the amendment. I
thank my colleagues.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Kyl opened debate on this amendment
last night by noting that when an earlier version of this amendment was
offered a few weeks ago to S. 2454, it was a ``somewhat different''
amendment. I understand and appreciate this understatement, but I also
appreciate that Senator Kyl and his lead cosponsor Senator, Cornyn,
were willing to compromise and make improvements to their original
text.
I wish to express my appreciation to the Democratic leader, Senator
Reid. He was right to insist that the original version of the Kyl-
Cornyn amendment--a much broader version that some Senators wanted to
adopt almost immediately when it was introduced a few weeks ago--
deserved review and should not be rushed through the Senate to score
political points. He was right, as the latest version of the amendment
attests. In addition, in the immigration debate prior to the April
recess, Senator Durbin recognized and described several drafting flaws
in the original amendment that would have swept in hundreds of
thousands of immigrants, perhaps unintentionally. With a little time,
and thanks to a lot of hard work, the amendment has been significantly
changed, narrowed, and improved.
Among the modifications, the amendment now includes a waiver of its
provisions. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive
certain conditions of ineligibility to participate in the earned
legalization program in title VI of the bill. A negative impact on
family members, or humanitarian concerns such as harsh conditions in
the immigrant's home country, should allow participation in the earned
legalization program. An alien's failure to obey an order of
deportation may be based upon the alien's trepidation over leaving
behind his U.S. citizen children. An immigrant may have had to use
false documents to gain entry into the U.S., such as the case of an
asylum seeker who is fleeing persecution.
There is a humane way to treat otherwise law-abiding immigrants. This
is consistent with American values. I wish that the Kyl-Cornyn
amendment could be modified further so that its exclusions were more
specifically focused on criminals. That is what we have done in our
bill and in underlying law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Thune be
added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we yield back the time on both sides, if
Senator Kennedy is amenable.
Mr. KENNEDY. We yield back the balance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Texas yielding back all
time?
Mr. CORNYN. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[[Page S4651]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 4027) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, under our sequencing, we are about to go
to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr.
Sessions. We are trying to get time agreements. Senator Sessions
believes this is a very complex and important matter, which I agree
that it is, so I propound a unanimous consent request for 3 hours
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I, just for a moment, ask the
leader to withhold the request and see if I can clear this with the
leadership here? Could you withhold the request?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do withhold the request. In the
interim, while Senator Kennedy is reviewing the matter, we can start
the debate with Senator Sessions and look forward to counting the time,
which we start now, on Senator Sessions' ultimate hour and a half, if
we may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, perhaps as we go forward, we can finish
up in less time than that. Maybe our colleagues on the other side will
yield back some time. I think this is an amendment that we need to talk
about in some significant way. This amendment deals with barriers at
the border. I think this is something for which there is a growing
appreciation, and it is not in the bill today.
Before I go into that, let me say to my colleagues and those who may
be listening that we need to spend yet more time with this legislation.
It is a 614-page bill. Few of our Senators have had the opportunity to
study it or to understand in any significant degree the breadth of it.
There are things in it that absolutely do not represent good policy and
need to be reconsidered. I hope our colleagues will do that.
The vote last night on the Bingaman amendment was a very important
one. It took the maximum number of people who could enter our country
under the so-called guest worker provisions from around 130 million
over 20 years, at a maximum, down far below that to probably 9 million.
That is in only one provision of the bill. However, I remind my
colleagues that while that was one of the most egregious provisions in
this entire legislation, this legislation still calls for massive
increases of legal immigration into our country, even with that change
we effected last night.
My staff worked hard on this, and I don't think anybody has even
considered the numbers until the last week or the last few days. That
analysis concludes that as the bill is now written----
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may interrupt the Senator from
Alabama to propound a unanimous consent request.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will yield if I can reclaim the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set a 3-
hour time limit, with an hour and a half under the control of Senator
Sessions, 45 minutes under the control of Senator Kennedy, and 45
minutes under my control, with the time of the vote to be determined by
the leaders. I do not anticipate a 1:30 vote, which would be
inconvenient. We will respect Senator Reid's position of taking the
amendments one at a time and not setting them aside. But we can do that
consistent with stacking the votes until later in the afternoon.
Starting this morning, it was hard to get all of the people in, and
we started the vote a little earlier than anticipated. So we did not
maintain our time structure on the first vote. But we are going to
insist on observing the rule of 15 minutes and 5 minutes over, or if
votes are stacked, 10 minutes and 5 minutes over, to see if we can move
the bill along. So I ask unanimous consent for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I add to that agreement no second-degree
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3979

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3979.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Vitter, and Mr.
Bunning, proposes an amendment numbered 3979.

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

(Purpose: To increase the amount of fencing and improve vehicle
barriers installed along the southwest border of the United States)

Strike section 106, and insert the following:

SEC. 106. CONSTRUCTION OF STRATEGIC BORDER FENCING AND
VEHICLE BARRIERS.

(a) Tucson Sector.--The Secretary shall--
(1) replace all aged, deteriorating, or damaged primary
fencing in the Tucson Sector located proximate to population
centers in Douglas, Nogales, Naco, and Lukeville, Arizona
with double- or triple-layered fencing running parallel to
the international border between the United States and
Mexico;
(2) extend the double- or triple-layered fencing for a
distance of not less than 2 miles beyond urban areas, except
that the double- or triple-layered fence shall extend west of
Naco, Arizona, for a distance of 10 miles; and
(3) construct not less than 150 miles of vehicle barriers
and all-weather roads in the Tucson Sector running parallel
to the international border between the United States and
Mexico in areas that are known transit points for illegal
cross-border traffic.
(b) Yuma Sector.--The Secretary shall--
(1) replace all aged, deteriorating, or damaged primary
fencing in the Yuma Sector located proximate to population
centers in Yuma, Somerton, and San Luis, Arizona with double-
or triple-layered fencing running parallel to the
international border between the United States and Mexico;
(2) extend the double- or triple-layered fencing for a
distance of not less than 2 miles beyond urban areas in the
Yuma Sector; and
(3) construct not less than 50 miles of vehicle barriers
and all-weather roads in the Yuma Sector running parallel to
the international border between the United States and Mexico
in areas that are known transit points for illegal cross-
border traffic.
(c) Other High Trafficked Areas.--The Secretary shall
construct not less than 370 miles of triple-layered fencing
which may include portions already constructed in San Diego
Tucson and Yuma sectors and 500 miles of vehicle barriers in
other areas along the southwest border that the Secretary
determines are areas that are most often used by smugglers
and illegal aliens attempting to gain illegal entry into the
United States.
(d) Construction Deadline.--The Secretary shall immediately
commence construction of the fencing, barriers, and roads
described in subsections (a), (b), and (c) and shall complete
such construction not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
that describes the progress that has been made in
constructing the fencing, barriers, and roads described in
subsections (a), (b), and (c).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such

[[Page S4652]]

sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my
colleagues, Senator Santorum, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Vitter, and
Senator Bunning be made original cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, my colleagues need to know that we
still, after the positive step we took last night, are looking at
increasing immigration into our country by a significant amount. Those
totals will range, depending on how it plays out, from a minimum of 63
million to 93 million. That is 3 to 5 times the current number we now
allow, and would expect to allow, over 20 years, which is 19 million
people allowed to come into our country legally. This would raise that
number to between 63 million and 93 million. It is better than where we
were yesterday, but I still submit that it is a number that has not
been carefully thought out. We have not analyzed how to do this with a
number that is still too great, in my opinion.
We hear over and over that this is a guest worker proposal, it is a
guest worker plan. There is nothing ``guest'' about it. Every person
who comes in under this legislation, as it is now written, as it is now
on the floor of the Senate, will be able to enter for a significant
period of time. They will be able to apply for a green card shortly
thereafter. That means you are a legal, permanent resident. After 5
years, you can apply for citizenship. So this is not temporary.
As President Bush mentioned yesterday several times--a temporary
worker program--it is not temporary. It is a permanent move for people
to enter our country to become citizens, and that is a matter far more
significant than some have suggested to us. I think it is important for
us to all know that. Please, we need to know that. Anybody who says
``temporary worker'' in discussions with the media or on the floor of
the Senate ought to have their hand spanked a little bit.
Next, the legislation continues and accelerates an emphasis on low-
skilled workers. All of the economists that we have heard testify in
the Senate Judiciary Committee--and we have not had a lot--agreed that
low-skilled workers tend to be a net drain on the economy and utilize
more in Government benefits, welfare, and health care than high-skilled
workers. Any program that we pass ought to emphasize high-skilled
workers. This bill doesn't do that. This bill does nothing about the
chain migration in which people who work their way to citizenship can
bring in their parents, their brothers and sisters, adult children,
regardless of the needs of the United States for workers, regardless of
what skills they may have and whether we need them in the United
States. Under this bill, citizenship is an automatic right. That ought
to be confronted. The economists and public policy experts we have
heard from raise that point and say other countries are not that way.
So this is the Senate. We are supposed to be the thoughtful branch.
This is one of the most important issues this Senate has faced in
decades. The people of the United States really care about this. They
are concerned about it. They want us to do the right thing. That will
include creating a legal system that is enforceable and will increase
the number of legal immigrants into our country.
But how will we do it? Will we do it in a principled way that is
helpful to our Nation's future or will we continue to willy-nilly
provide, in effect, entitlements to people from all over the world to
come here regardless of the needs of the United States?
Some say: We just need to pass something. Don't be nitpicky,
Sessions, just pass something. We will get it to conference and somehow
it will be fixed there.
I have my doubts about that, No. 1. No. 2, this is the Senate. We
will be casting votes on this legislation, and we ought not vote for
anything that we know is not good public policy.
A critical part of the immigration reform that we need to effect for
our country is to make sure that our legal system, which is so utterly
broken on this issue, is repaired. It needs to work. Can anyone dispute
that? Today, we understand that 1 million people come into the country
legally each year. The estimates are that 500,000 to 800,000 will be
coming in illegally each year--almost as many legal immigrants.
I see Senator Vitter in the Chair, who is such a knowledgeable and
articulate spokesman on this issue. I happened to see the mayor's
debate in New Orleans last night, and Hard Ball asked them what about
illegal immigrants? They had to have them to do the work in New
Orleans. There was a discussion about it. What is the answer to that?
Of course, you don't need illegal immigrants to do the work. Of course,
if we craft a good immigration bill, when you have a crisis like
Hurricane Katrina, we would be able to have temporary workers come in
in whatever numbers are necessary to do that work. That is what a good
bill would do.
That is a crisis that calls for an unusual amount of workers. Why
don't we draft something that would actually work in that circumstance?
Not anybody, no one, should come in and justify illegality. If the law
is not adequate, let's fix it. The truth is, I think it is adequate
today.
A critical part of moving us to an effective, enforceable, honorable,
decent, legal immigration system is to send the message to the world
that our border is not open, our border is closed. There are a number
of ways to do that. I think that is important because we need to reach
a tipping point where the people who want to come to our country know
without doubt that coming here illegally is not going to be successful,
and their best way to come here is to file the proper application and
wait in line. Isn't that the right policy?
So how do we go from this lawless system, a system that makes a
mockery of the laws of this great Nation, the United States of America,
to a system that works? We send some signals and we do some things
appropriately. President Bush did one of them the night before last
when he said we were going to use the National Guard. That is a signal
to the world that business as usual has ended, that we are going to
create a legal system that works. We want him to follow through on that
and with all of the other requirements that go with it. But it is a
good step and a good signal, and it will help us improve that system.
Another way is to have more Border Patrol agents. We need that. We
have authorized some more in this bill but not enough. It is a matter
of critical importance, and we will need to fund that--the Senate and
House--and not just to authorize it. Isn't that an essential part of it
if we are going to change from a lawless system to a lawful system?
Another thing that we absolutely need, and every expert knows, is to
increase the retention space. We have to end the catch and release.
When you catch someone who comes into this country through Mexico or
Canada from a country that is other than Mexico or Canada, where they
are not contiguous to the United States, how do you get them home?
How do you return them? You have to put them on a boat or train or
plane, and that is not always easy to do. So do you know what has been
happening, friends and neighbors? They catch them around the border,
and they are released on bail and asked to come back at a certain time
so they can be taken out of the country. How many do you think show up
to be deported? They violated the law to come here, so we release them
on bail and ask them to show up so they can be deported. How laughable
is that? One reporter did an analysis in one area of this system, and
95 percent did not show up. Surprise, surprise. Why do we release them?
Why do we not hold them until they can be deported? Because we don't
have sufficient bed space.
Part of reaching a tipping point in creating a legal system is to
make sure we don't eviscerate the work of our law enforcement agents by
having them turn loose the people they just went out in the desert to
catch. How simple is that? But it is critical, and it is not there yet.
So people who say they want a stronger border have to support, in my
view, more detention spaces.
This amendment also deals with a critical component of creating a
legal system that works, and that is fencing. It sends a signal that
open border days are over, and it will greatly enhance

[[Page S4653]]

enforcement. It will pay for itself many times over the years. It is a
reasonable proposal. It does not overreach. It builds on the provisions
that are in the bill.
Senator Kyl in committee had a number of provisions dealing with
Arizona and fencing along that border. It builds on those provisions
and keeps that language in the bill but provides and directs that we
have 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of barriers sufficient to keep
vehicles from crossing the border. We are at a point where we need to
take this step if we are serious.
The bill before us today, S. 2611, is the fundamental base bill from
which we are working. Its language calls for repair and construction of
additional fencing in very limited areas along the southern border,
mostly in Arizona, as I just mentioned. But for the most part, this
provision simply calls for the repair of fences that already exist in
the Tucson and Yuma sections of Arizona.
Other than this limited amount of fencing, provisions contained in
title I of this bill call only for the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive plan for the systematic
surveillance of the border, and section 129 calls for only a study to
assess the necessity, feasibility, and economic impact of constructing
physical barriers along the border. Just a study.
This amendment attempts to go forward and create a real solution to
the problem. It directs that the Secretary of Homeland Security
construct at least 370 miles of triple-layered fencing, including the
fencing already built in San Diego, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers
at strategic locations along the southwest border.
These are not extreme numbers in any way. In fact, they are the
numbers given to a number of Senators in a briefing a few weeks ago by
Secretary Chertoff himself, President Bush's Secretary of Homeland
Security. He said this is what he believes at this point in time he
needs. It directs that this be done. It sends a signal to our
appropriators that it should be funded, and it authorizes the President
and the executive branch to go further than this and build such other
fences as they may find appropriate.
We will have objections for reasons I am not sure why, but I suspect
we will have objections. One of the points I have been making for some
time when it comes to fixing our immigration system is that we have
quite a number of Members of the House and Senate and members in the
media who are all in favor of reforms and improvements as long as they
don't really work. If it really makes a difference and will actually
tilt the system from one that is illegal and will change the status quo
and move us to a legal system, somehow, someway, there will be
objections to it.
I submit that we are going to have objections to this modest proposal
to build 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of barriers according to
the request of the Secretary of Homeland Security because it is going
to work. That is why. We will have a lot of other reasons, such as it
might send a bad signal. But good fences make good neighbors. Fences
don't make bad neighbors. Go to the San Diego border and talk with the
people. There was lawlessness, drug dealing, gangs, and economic
depression on both sides of the border. When they built the fence and
brought that border under control, the economy on both sides of the
fence blossomed, crime has fallen, and it is an entirely different
place and a much better place. That is just the way it is. We have to
do this, and it is time to move forward.
A state-of-the-art border security system should be robust enough
that it would not be easily compromised by cutting, climbing,
tunneling, or ramming through with a vehicle, when combined with high-
tech detection devices, motion sensors, body sensors, and seismic or
subterranean sensors. A good barrier should make intrusion time
consuming enough that a border unit could respond to the attempted
intrusion before they are successful. That is what a fence does. To be
worth our efforts, it does not need to be 100 percent impenetrable; it
simply needs to improve significantly the status quo, and I am
confident this amendment will do that.
Mr. President, it is great to see my colleague, Senator Ben Nelson,
in the Chamber. He is dealing with a number of important issues today,
but he has understood the importance of security at the border from the
beginning. He has articulated clearly and effectively his vision for
that and has recognized that unless we demonstrate to the world and to
our own people that we have border security done first, then nothing
else is going to be meaningful, and we will be right back where we were
in the beginning.
I know Senator Nelson has to leave, and I am pleased to yield to him
such time as we have remaining to speak on this amendment. I have been
pleased to work with him on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Nebraska is
recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the
Senator from Alabama, for his incredible work on this border-security-
first issue and his work on this particular amendment. It is a pleasure
for me to join with him to support securing our borders.
Senator Sessions has made a very strong argument as to why we need to
secure the border first to pursue this whole question of how do we deal
with border security and with the immigration issues of those who are
already here illegally.
The key is to prevent not only illegal pedestrian and vehicular
traffic crossing the international border of the United States for
people coming here to work, but it also includes a great concern, a
growing concern about the number of people who are smuggling drugs into
the United States, as well as those who are crossing the border for
other illegal purposes, such as gang membership in communities across
this country.
We have a multisituation with which we have to deal, but it is all
handled in the same way in terms of securing the border first. Whether
it is to prevent illegal people coming for purposes of work or whether
it is for other purposes, most of which would be criminal in nature, we
need to secure that border.
I never thought I would be proposing a security system that would
include a border fence and a surveillance system that would protect our
borders to the south or requiring a border study for the northern
border as well. But I never expected that we would end up with the
problem we have today.
If we go back to 1986 when the first amnesty bill was dealt with and
President Reagan signed it and promised that the U.S. Government would
continue to enforce border security, we had between 1 and 2 million
people in the United States illegally. Of course, that was, by
comparison to the 11 to 12 million today, a much smaller number,
obviously, but a much smaller problem in terms of the numbers to deal
with.
Today, the problem has continued to worsen, and as a result of the
debate in the Senate and without action to secure the borders first
from 3 weeks to 4 weeks ago, the number of border crossings is
increasing percentagewise. The numbers continue to increase because
there is an expectation that when they get here, somehow the U.S.
Government, Congress, will find a way to bless it, find a way to excuse
it, find a way to accept it, find a way to make it legal, and
everything will be OK. That is because we haven't taken the opportunity
to secure our borders first. Then, when we have those borders secured
with this fence, with this barrier against pedestrian and vehicular
traffic, we will be in a position to deal with the 11 to 12 million
people in this country illegally and find solutions through a
comprehensive approach.
My colleague has made it very clear and I believe it is very obvious
that if we continue to pursue a multiapproach in the Senate, as opposed
to border security, and try to solve all the problems with a do-
everything bill, that if this bill then passes and goes to conference,
it will be easier to square a circle than it will be to square the
Senate bill with the House bill. I am not going to excuse the dealings
we have with the people already here, but if we can't put the proper
order in place, we are not going to be able to solve this problem. I
believe that is a given.
When I first announced my border security bill last fall along with
Senator Sessions and Senator Coburn, people across the country were
talking about

[[Page S4654]]

securing our borders, but there wasn't any action. The truth is, that
was last fall, and here we are in the spring, and there is still no
action, people are still coming across the border in significant
numbers. We must, in fact, focus on how to deal with this problem in a
commonsense and effective way.
Sometimes it is great to talk about a comprehensive approach, and
sometimes it makes a great deal of sense to talk about what might be
involved in a comprehensive approach, but when we don't have a
comprehensive approach on the House side--and we have to, through
conference, be able to make the Senate bill work with the House
version. We have to be practical and recognize that these are two, in
many ways, diametrically opposed approaches and there is no real way to
square them.
I believe we ought to take the approach that makes the most sense,
and that is to pass a border-security-first bill, adopt this amendment,
and continue to work toward securing the borders so that once we get
that done, we can get a bill to the House, to conference, and we can
get that accomplished, and then we can spend the time necessary to
figure out how we square the problems in the United States today with
people who are here illegally. Before we jump to conclusions that will
enable others to come here legally or illegally, let us figure out what
the needs of the United States might be for workers before we decide to
allow people to come on their own initiative, whether they fit the
needs that exist for workers in the United States at the present time
or the future.
We don't have to be mean-spirited dealing with this issue. We don't
have to be divisive among one another to solve this problem. What we
have to do is apply some common sense as to what is going to work and
how we can get that accomplished. If we do that, then we can sit down
and work our way through the other problem we have of the President's
points 1 and 2 in terms of border security. We can figure out a way, if
we are going to close the back door to illegal immigration, to open the
front door to legal immigration, whether it is through guest workers or
emergency situations where we have emergency needs that would require
workers to come in on a guest-worker basis. We can resolve those
issues. We can resolve that. What we cannot do is we cannot resolve all
of this at the same time in one package effectively and get anything
done.

I am an optimist on most occasions, but I have to tell you that I am
very concerned what will happen is that the Senate will pass this
comprehensive, do-everything version of a bill, and then it will go to
conference and nothing will happen. Actually, nothing will happen on
the legislation because it won't be able to be squared with the House
version.
But let me tell you what will happen. If we don't have that border
secured sufficiently, there will be an influx of more illegal
immigrants coming to get here while they can, while nothing occurs on
the legislation. That is unacceptable to the American people. The
American people want to secure the borders. They want to find a
comprehensive solution. But they know it doesn't make any sense for the
problem to get bigger in terms of the numbers while nothing happens on
our legislation once it is passed by the Senate and goes to the
conference committee.
I wish it were different. I wish I could say all we have to do is
pass a good version in the Senate and send it over to the House and
somehow the whole process will work and everybody will come together
and we will have a bill and then it will all be taken care of and we
can all say: Well, we have solved that problem. It just doesn't work
that way here. We all know that.
Why don't we admit the practicality of where we are and resolve the
border security first, and then we can begin the very laborious and the
necessary task of working with the people who are here and do it in an
appropriate fashion, rather than rushing our way through with one
amendment after another amendment after another amendment, and see at
the end of the day what we have? When you make a pie a slice at a time,
it isn't necessarily a comprehensive approach.
I appreciate and I thank my good friend from Alabama for the
opportunity to speak on this issue today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire wanted to
speak on a different subject, and I believe he has cleared that, and it
would not count against the time on this amendment. I would be pleased,
if there is no objection, to allow him to speak on that subject now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to claim the
floor afterward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20
minutes and the time not be charged to this amendment and that Senator
Sessions be recognized upon completion of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to talk about border security.
Obviously it is a topic of hot discussion here in the Chamber, and I
just wanted to try to put in perspective what has actually happened and
what may happen, especially in light of the President's presentation on
Monday night.
I have the good fortune, I guess, to chair the appropriations
subcommittee which has responsibility for border security. I took this
over 2 years ago, a year and a half ago, I guess. When I took the
committee over, it became immediately apparent to me that the
priorities within the Department of Homeland Security were not
necessarily focused on what I consider to be the primary threat. So we
reoriented the funding within the Department to look at threat first,
the highest level threat being, of course, a weapon of mass destruction
which might be used against America. So we started to increase funding
immediately in that account.
In my opinion, the second highest level of threat was the fact that
our borders were simply not secure. They were porous. We didn't know
who was coming in. We especially didn't know who was leaving. We knew
that we weren't in control of the southern border relative to those
folks coming in, and we knew that on the northern border, although we
don't have the human-wave issue of illegal immigrants coming into the
country, we do have a very serious issue of people who might come
across the northern border represent clear and present threats to us,
probably even more so than across the southern borders, in some cases.
So we reoriented funding within the homeland security programs through
the first bill that I was in charge of.
At that time, the administration sent up a proposal which essentially
continued what I would call the benign neglect of the border security
effort in our country. Their proposal in that budget was for 210
additional border agents and essentially no increase in technical
capability or in the capacity of infrastructure or the capacity of ICE.
There was a proposal in the Coast Guard area, but it was anemic. So we
took that proposal which came from the administration and we reoriented
that, too. We said: We are going to increase the number of border
security agents on the border by 8,000. We are going to spend about 4
years to 5 years doing that. We had to begin slowly because the
training facilities simply weren't there for this type of a huge
increase in border security staff. So we began with a supplemental
number of 500, and then we followed that up with 1,000 additional
agents in the next regular bill that came through. So we added 1,500
new agents.

In addition, agents aren't the only issue. Boots on the ground is not
the only issue. Technology is an issue, but probably even more
important is the issue of what you do with an illegal immigrant who has
come across our border once you capture that individual on our side of
the border. Most of them are Mexican, on the southern border--about 85
percent--and they are immediately put on a bus and taken back across
the border. In many instances, they just come back the next day or a
week later. But a number of them are non-Mexicans, and those folks were
given what was called a catch-and-release status, where you essentially

[[Page S4655]]

gave them an indictment which said they must return to be heard in a
hearing 2 or 3 weeks later, maybe a month later, and then you released
these individuals. Of course most of them never come back. Sixty-six
percent never return to that hearing. That wasn't working, so we
believed we should significantly increase the number of detention beds
so we would have the capacity to actually hold people, especially non-
Mexicans, who were coming across our border and whom we couldn't
immediately return by bus to their country, as we could with the
Mexicans. So we started to expand the number of beds, and we increased
the number of beds by about I think 2,000 in that first budget cycle.
After having done that, it was ironic, and I guess appropriate, that
the White House came forward and said: What a great idea. That is our
idea. Let's take credit for this idea. So they held a press conference
and said: What a wonderful idea you had to increase the number of
border agents by 1,500 people and the number of beds by a couple
thousand, and we would actually be taking the money and putting it
toward border security. That was a year ago.
Now the new budget came up again, and this time the administration
sent up a budget which was oriented toward border security in that they
represented that they were going to increase the number of agents by
another 1,500 and the number of beds by another 6,000, and they were
going to begin to put more money into the Coast Guard initiative called
deepwater. But it is not really deepwater; it would be better called
protecting our coastline from threat. ``Deepwater'' makes people think
it is somewhere out in the middle of the ocean. It may occur in the
ocean, but actually this is threat protection along our coast.
So they made these commitments within the budget they sent up. What
they failed to do, however, was fund those commitments because they
sent up really a hollow budget in that they put in that budget a system
for paying for these new Border Patrol agents and these new beds by
increasing the fees on people who are traveling on airplanes by about
$1.2 billion. Of course, that fee proposal had been rejected the year
before. The Chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over that
proposal had rejected it out of hand this year when that budget was
sent up, and everybody knows that it is not going anywhere, so it is
what is called a plug. It happens around here. People send up a budget,
and they will put a plug in it, which is basically a number they know
they are never going to get, but they put it in to make the budget look
correct. This was a plug. Clearly, airline fees, if they are going to
be increased, that revenue should go toward airline traffic protection,
which is basically TSA activity, maybe some visa activity, but it is
not appropriate to put an increase on the airline passenger, on people
using the airlines, and then take that revenue and put it on the
border. If you want to use a fee on the border, put a fee on the
border. Put a 50-cent charge as if you are going through a toll gate.
If people want to come across the border, maybe it should cost people
75 cents.
But in any event, that wasn't proposed. What was proposed was to
raise the airline fee, which everybody knew was not going to be done.
It was a plug number. So even though they sent up a budget number to
increase the Border Patrol agents by 1,500 and the beds by about 6,000,
as a practical matter, it would be very hard for us to do that with the
numbers they sent up to back up those commitments, but at least the
commitment was there.
As the chairman of that appropriations subcommittee, it put me in a
very difficult position because basically I have to go out and find
that $1.2 billion to fill that hole, to get the additional funding to
get those agents, which we wanted to do or had intended to do. That
means I have to convince the Chairman of the committee, Senator
Cochran, to take money from some other subcommittee in order to do that
within the confines of the budget--obviously a challenge to Senator
Cochran and clearly a position he shouldn't have been put in, but he
has been, as have I.
Now, because of the fact that, as we looked hard at the border patrol
issue and the securing of the border issue, it became very apparent
that not only were boots on the ground an issue but actual physical
capital assets were a huge issue--for example, the planes that are
flown by the Customs Department, the Customs agents, are 30 to 40 years
old and 20 years past their useful life. The helicopters being flown by
the Border Patrol agents are 20 years past their useful life. The Coast
Guard has a fleet which is very aged and which is not fast. They have
one or two planes that are up to snuff, but most of their planes need
to be refurbished. In addition, the unmanned technological activity
along the border, specifically unmanned aerial vehicles--there was one,
but regrettably it crashed 3 weeks ago. That has been discussed a lot
on this floor. So there are actually none right now, and there won't be
a new one until August. In fact, the surveillance fleet is so bad that
about a month ago, the entire fleet was grounded, so we had no planes
in the air.

Then you have the vehicle issue. These vehicles wear out very quickly
because they are used very aggressively in very difficult terrain. Then
you have the issue of just simply the training facilities because as
you dramatically expand the number of people you are trying to put in
the Border Patrol, you need training facilities to do that. Those
training facilities are being upgraded and have been upgraded, but they
need to be upgraded further to handle the even more people we are going
to put in there.
So I suggested about a year and a half ago that we do a capital
infusion into the border security effort which would essentially
accelerate the Coast Guard refurbishment, taking it from completion in
the year 2026, which I thought was a little long to wait for the Coast
Guard to be refurbished, down to 2016. It would get the new planes for
the Customs Agency; get new helicopters for the Border Patrol; and
instead of having one Predator, which no longer exists, in the air on
the border, have three or four Predators on the border. There are other
technologies which are a lot cheaper, actually, than using that vehicle
which probably should be pursued, and doing the technology along the
border relative to land-to-land detection.
In addition, the capital infusion would give the Border Patrol the
physical facilities so that when we get all of these Border Patrol
agents together in their various facilities, they have a place to sit
down, they also have desks at which to work, and they have vehicles
that allow them to go out in the field and do their job.
To accomplish that kind of refurbishment was in, our estimation,
about a $1.9 billion effort. So I initially put that forward in the
Defense bill last year. It got knocked out. It went in on the Senate
floor, went to conference, and it got knocked out. I then put it in the
reconciliation bill, and it got knocked out. I then put it in, with the
support of the Senate--the strong support of the Senate--actually
Senator Byrd has been a pleasure to work with as the ranking member on
this subcommittee. I then put it into the most recent supplemental that
came across the floor, $1.9 billion for capital activity. Well, then we
had a presentation by the President on Monday night which suggested we
bring in the National Guard to basically, I guess, as I understand it,
free up Border Patrol agents from desk jobs and get them out in the
field--to simplify the statement of what they will be doing, although
they will be doing more than that, I am sure--essentially is funded by
taking the $1.9 billion and moving it from capital refurbishment over
to operational exercises. That, in my opinion, is not necessarily--
well, I will let people assess where that is.

In any event, it would mean the capital initiative would no longer
exist and the dollars would go to pay for the National Guard and for
other activities that are operational in nature, including adding an
additional 1,000 Border Patrol agents on top of the 1,500, which we did
plan to add this year. This would be good if we could actually
accomplish that. However, there are technical restrictions on the
ability to hire--it takes about 35,000 applications to get 1,000
agents--and the capacity to train is extremely limited. It is limited,
not extremely limited--but it is limited so you probably can't do 2,500
agents in the timeframe this proposal has put forward. Maybe you can. I

[[Page S4656]]

doubt it. The track record of this department in this area is not
stellar.
Essentially what is happening is that $1.9 billion which was supposed
to go to capital improvements to get the planes, so they could fly the
helicopters, fly the predators--so they could be up in the air, and the
vehicle so they can drive around the border doesn't exist anymore. I
was told by the Chairman of the conference yesterday: Good luck in
getting this money. If you want to break the President's hard number of
$94 billion and claim it as an emergency, you can get the money and get
it that way.
Of course, as the Chairman of the Budget Committee, when I put this
proposal forward I hadn't actually paid for it, and that was the key. I
took it out of the across-the-board cut from defense. It was not my
first choice on how to pay for it, but at the request of Senators
Stevens and Warner, I did that. But, obviously, I am not going to put
forward a proposal that exceeds the $94 billion and is unpaid for and
there is no way to pay for it from the money paid to the Defense
Department in this supplemental as an add-on to the initial $1.9
billion. We need, obviously, $3.8 billion at that point. So this
capital improvement exercise is essentially dead as a result of the
money being moved, migrated over to the operations side relative to the
National Guard.
The practical effect of that also will be that the out-year pressure
on the budget, on the appropriations account relative to this account,
will be significantly higher because we will be putting in place a
budget item essentially paying for the National Guard, or the people
who replace the National Guard, which will be at least $1.9 billion in
costs annually on top of the present appropriated plan. So to do it
correctly we should not only use this $1.9 billion for this operational
activity, but there should have been a supplemental request for the
budget of the homeland security agency, the Department of Homeland
Security, to reflect what you might call the expense that is going to
be generated by the ongoing cost of putting this type of initiative in
the field, if you are going to be sure that initiative will continue
and will be robust.
I would be very much in support of that, obviously, because clearly
that number is going to have to be paid for. As I mentioned earlier in
this discussion, I already have a $1.2 billion hole in that budget
which I have to pay for in order to get the full 1,500 complement in
place of additional agents. Now I will have a $1.2 billion hole plus a
$1.9 billion hole on the operational side. And in addition, of course,
I will have a $1.9 billion hole on the capital expenditure side because
we still have these airplanes that have to be replaced, helicopters
that have to be replaced, unmanned vehicles that have to be put in the
air, and a Coast Guard that really should not have to wait until 2026
to adequately defend our coastline.
I want to outline the specifics of where we are now on the dollars
relative to border patrol and border security. When you get down to it,
this is not a complex issue, securing our border. We all know that with
8,000 more agents, about 10,000 more detention beds, with decent
technology on the border relative to unmanned vehicles and sensors,
with a Coast Guard that is up to snuff, with airplanes that are up to
snuff, we can essentially control the border to the extent you can
control it without a guest worker program in place. A guest worker
program still, in my opinion, is critical to any long-term resolution
of this program because human nature says people are going to cross the
border if they are getting paid $5 in Mexico and $50 in the United
States for a day's labor and they have a family to support. So that is
an element of it.
But the first element to which I think everybody has agreed is decent
border security. Decent border security only requires resources. We
have the capacity to do it; we have the technology to do it. It would
be nice if the Defense Department would share a little more
aggressively with Homeland Security, or Homeland Security would, on the
other hand, go out more actively to try to get the Defense Department
to share it, but we have all the parts sitting there in the box. What
we have to do is pay the price of taking them out of the box and
putting them in the places they should be.
I just wanted to outline where we stand relative to the issue of
resources because I think there has been considerable confusion,
especially in light of the speech by the President on Monday.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be good enough to yield for a question?
Mr. GREGG. Of course, I am happy to yield to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. We have before us now an amendment in terms of building
some 350 miles of additional fence. It is going to be a triple fence.
The best estimates--the Senate, I am sure, will hear from the Senator
from Alabama--but the best estimates we have been able to see is
approximately $4 billion.
I am just listening to the Senator talk about allocating resources to
renew technology between border guards, between helicopters, unmanned
aerial vehicles, other infrastructure improvements, and the pressure
that we are under in terms of the appropriations. Having listened to
the Senator from New Hampshire, and listened to how he had to allocate
$1.9 billion, is he prepared to make any comment if we add another
authorization for another $4 billion or $5 billion on fencing, where
that money would be available?
Mr. GREGG. In response to the Senator from Massachusetts, neither he
nor Senator Sessions is going to like my response. I come down on the
middle on this one. We can have, in that capital allocation, money for
a fence. I believe additional fencing is important, especially in the
urban areas where the crossing points are basically stepping across a
street corner, and you have to put up significant fencing to accomplish
that. I honestly don't know the number of miles. But clearly there is
going to be a significant cost. I am of the view that we ought to
listen to the department as to what the number is relative to the miles
of fence that is needed. I would very much oppose a fence that ran the
whole length of the border. I think that would be a waste of money, it
would be inappropriate, and it would be extremely inhospitable to
Mexico.

But there are areas of the country that the only way you can do it is
by fence. Certainly, the San Diego fence proved to us that fences do
work in urban areas. What the distances should be and what the numbers
should be, I don't know the answer to that question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator could yield for another question? Could
the Senator have 3 more minutes to just yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. I must say I agree with the Senator--we will have a
chance, when I have my own time, to talk about Secretary Chertoff--that
there are appropriate areas. I agree with the Senator as well. But just
extending a fence all along the border does not make sense. I think his
response is certainly one with which I agree, and I thank him for his
comments.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator and yield the floor and appreciate the
courtesy of the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Massachusetts
for allowing me to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire
because it is very important that we have, as the chairman of our
Budget Committee, someone who can add and someone who has a memory. We
forget how things happen around here, and Senator Gregg has a way of
reminding us of how we get in these fixes. It is very valuable to us.
I would respond to my colleague from Massachusetts that $4 billion to
$5 billion is an estimate for the fence across the entire 1,980 miles
of border. This amendment calls for 370 miles, some of which has
already been built. It is called for by the Secretary of Homeland
Security. It does, indeed, focus mostly on urban areas, and it gives
him great flexibility in deciding where to put it.
Does it cost some money? Yes. But I want to tell every Member of our
Senate community that the American people expect this. If it takes a
sequester

[[Page S4657]]

across the board and takes a half of 1 percent of every budget to get
this thing done and fix immigration, that is what they want us to do.
I am delighted that Senator Vitter of Louisiana is here and also
wants to speak on this issue. He is an original cosponsor.
I would also note, and add for the Record, that Senator Graham, our
Presiding Officer, and Senator Inhofe wish to be original cosponsors,
as does Senator Kyl from Arizona. I ask that be part of the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield such time as Senator Vitter uses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. First, let me congratulate my colleague from Alabama for
putting together this very essential amendment. I am proud to be an
original cosponsor, and I want to strongly support it.
I also want to suggest that based on the discussion we just heard
involving the chairman of the Budget Committee and the Senator from
Massachusetts, everyone in this Chamber, based on their statements,
should support this amendment. Based on what the Senator from
Massachusetts just said, he should embrace this amendment because, if
you look at the details of what this amendment does, it is perfectly
consistent with those statements, and it is perfectly consistent with
what the President said on Monday night. It is utterly consistent with
what Secretary Chertoff says he wants and needs as a crucial element of
border security. It is not the only element, not the only silver
bullet, there is no magic wand, but it is a crucial element of border
security.
Unfortunately, the underlying bill does not provide enough
authorization and demand for fencing in this regard. The underlying
bill, particularly section 106, only calls for a very limited and
modest repair and construction of fencing along very limited parts of
the southern border of Arizona. That is basically fencing that largely
already exists in the Tucson and Yuma sections of Arizona.
What this amendment would do would be to expand that provision in a
very reasonable and cost-effective way. What this amendment would say
is that the Secretary of Homeland Security would construct at least 270
miles of triple-layered fence, including the miles of fence already
built in San Diego, Tucson, and Yuma, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers
at strategic locations.
Again, I underscore that this is not building a wall or a fence
across the entire Mexican border. This is not the cost cited by the
Senator from Massachusetts. This is something far more focused, that
will be a great force multiplier as we put more agents at the border,
and that is an absolutely critical part of truly defending the border.
As the chairman of the Budget Committee said, in highly urban areas
there is simply no way around the need for a fence. To avoid a fence in
highly populated areas would literally require a border agent every few
feet to monitor the border because you are talking about a border
running through the middle, essentially, of an urban neighborhood. That
is an impossible enforcement situation without some sort of physical
barrier. These 370 miles would go into those highly populated areas.
I underscore that this is exactly consistent with what virtually
everybody has been talking about. Monday night the President talked
about border security. He wasn't quite as strong on border security as
I would have liked. He wasn't quite as focused on border security,
first, before we move on to other elements of this bill, as I would
have liked, but he explicitly mentioned the need for significant
fencing for those highly populated areas. This amendment simply does
that.
The President's own Secretary, Mike Chertoff, has met with Members of
this body, and he specifically talked about exactly the same need and
specifically talked about 370 miles. That is where this number in this
amendment comes from. This number didn't come from out of the blue. It
wasn't just a wild guess. It wasn't just a pretty number. It came from
discussions with Secretary Chertoff.
The chairman of the Budget Committee, when asked by the Senator from
Massachusetts would he support fencing, said we absolutely need it as a
piece of our enforcement puzzle for highly populated areas--for urban
neighborhoods.
That is exactly what this amendment addresses. Again, the 370 miles
is exactly focused on that type of need--highly populated areas where
to patrol the border without any physical structure would literally
require a border agent every several feet, which is completely
impractical and cost prohibitive.
I think this is an absolutely essential amendment to the bill.
Really, this is the sort of amendment that will test how serious folks
really are about enforcement.
This whole immigration debate is pretty interesting. We have wildly
divergent views and strong passions on the issue from one end of the
spectrum to the other. Yet if you listen to speakers on this floor, no
one is in favor of amnesty and everyone is in favor of border security.
Of course, it depends on how you define ``amnesty'' and how you define
``border security.''
In terms of border security, this amendment is a simple test on
whether you are really serious in what you say. This is a gut check
that the American people can understand very simply. If border security
means anything, it surely means, among many other items, this 370-mile
fence. If a Member of the Senate votes against this really quite
narrowly tailored, limited in some ways, modest amendment, I think the
American people will get it. They will surely know that Member isn't
serious in any way about border security.
In closing, let me thank the Senator from Alabama again for this very
necessary amendment. If border security is to mean anything, if it is
to possibly work--and I have serious reservations about whether the
plan in this underlying bill will be allowed to work, will be enforced,
if the appropriations will happen to make it work, but if it is to have
a chance to work, surely it has to include this modest 370-mile fence,
the sort of fencing President Bush specifically talked about and the
number of miles his Secretary of Homeland Security specifically
mentioned in meetings with Members of this body.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 45 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use.
Over the course of the discussion and debate on immigration reform,
those of us who have been strong supporters of it have pointed out what
the President of the United States pointed out; that is, this is about
four major aspects of having this program work. They are all
interrelated. That is what we call comprehensive. One of them is border
security.
Those of us who support strong immigration reform strongly support
border security. We voted for the enhancement and the increase in the
supplemental.
We just listened to the Senator from New Hampshire who outlined how
he allocated $1.9 billion. It is very interesting that we have some
allocation for a San Diego fence in that, but he also talked about
using new technology and using recent technological breakthroughs as
being the most effective way to provide security at the border. He
reiterated that today.
The chart behind me illustrates border enforcement which is in S.
2611 at the present time: 12,000 new border agents; high-technology,
virtual fence which was favorably and positively commented on by the
Senator from New Hampshire when he had responsibility to take the $1.9
billion and look at how he was going to allocate it over the period of
time.
It talks about the new roads, vehicle barriers at the border, and
about fencing in strategic locations.
Do you understand fencing in strategic locations? That is a part of
S. 2611.
I was at the briefing with Mr. Chertoff. I understand he was talking
about building a fence at strategic locations, but 400 miles of urban
area is on the border.
Let us be serious--400 miles. That is almost a quarter of the
southern border stretching from California to the Gulf of Mexico. And
we are trying to

[[Page S4658]]

convince the Member from Massachusetts that is an urban area? Come on.
We recognize there are going to be certain strategic areas for
fencing. That is in this bill.
Authorization for permanent highways in the legislation, and we are
all familiar with that. Who can get that bumper sticker up the highest?
Let us put up another 30,000 border guards. I dare you to vote against
that and I will show that you are not interested in border security.
Let us put another 1,800 miles of fence down there and triple wiring to
show how tough we are on it.
Is that the challenge out here when we are trying to deal with a
comprehensive program? I don't think so.
What we are trying to do is do what is necessary.
The Senator from New Hampshire talked about the limitations in
recruitment. You have to get 40,000 in order to get 1,000 in terms that
will be qualified for border security. He talks about the limitations
in training programs. He talks about the technological kinds of
limitations.
I thought he made a very responsible presentation.
If there were additional needs, we were prepared.
We have had the opportunity to work on this issue on border security.
We have also recognized that part of border security is enforcement in
terms of those who would be coming into the United States as guest
workers to make sure we are not going to have exploitation. If they are
not going to be able to get that job which they are able to get today,
there will be less pressures on the border.

All of that is entirely relevant. If they have the ability to go back
and forth, there will be less pressure on the border as well. These are
all entirely relevant. That is the result of the extensive hearings we
had. These are all the items which we have included.
I am for Secretary Chertoff working through those particular areas.
With his charts and maps, he demonstrated areas where he thought it
made some sense to put some fencing and other areas where he thought it
was completely unnecessary. There is nothing in the current
legislation. In fact, there is sufficient authorization. So if the
Secretary wants to use resources that are allocated to him to meet the
responsibility, he has the power today to do it. There is no suggestion
that he does not have the power and does not have the flexibility in
terms of the budget to be able to do that today in the selected areas.
But the idea to effectively fence a quarter of the border on the
south, that is the downpayment for fencing the whole border.
There are Members of this body who believe that is the way to go. Let
us put the fence all down there. Then we are going to have guards going
all along that. We will back that up with the National Guard.
I don't know whether we have enough men and women in the National
Guard or if we are going to have a sufficient number of men and women
in the military to do that.
Then we are going to look at our northern border, as the Senator from
New Hampshire pointed out and as we have heard in our committee. If you
are looking at security issues, there is as much concern about the
northern border as there is about the southern border--so 4,200 miles
up there as well. It is unlimited. Let us get more border guards up
there. Let us get 4,200 miles of fencing up there as well.
We should secure our borders. To do that, you need a multidimensional
approach. You need effective enforcement. You need enforcement in terms
of here at home for employers that are going to bring undocumented
aliens to their companies and corporations. And you need a process
which is going to be vigorous in enforcement. We provide that as well.
I wish to mention a couple of items in terms of the fencing we have
seen that I think are also related. If we look at what has happened at
the border crossings over the last several years, let us recognize that
we are all committed to doing more on the border. But the idea that
border security in and of itself with fencing or not is going to solve
the problem just defies all recent history.
Forty-thousand came across the border 20 years ago, and 400,000 10
years ago. Mr. President, $20 billion--23 times the number of border
agents we have put on in the last 10 years, and it is probably double
that today. You just can't spend enough money on those. You can't get
enough agents. You have to look beyond that. You have to look at what
is happening here in U.S. in terms of employment and tough enforcement.
That is what we are about in this legislation.
Let me point out what this chart says. These are deaths due to
unauthorized border crossings. You go from 1996 with 315 to 1998 with
491. The list goes on, 391, 371, 412, 369, 443. These are the deaths
primarily in the desert.
We can ask ourselves, Why do we have a significant increase in 1997
to 1998? Why did it go from 129 to 325?
Do you know what happened during that period of time? The fence went
up in southern California. There is 67 miles of fencing at the present
time.
In the legislation, there are key areas which have been identified as
urban areas, and we also provide the resources for targeted areas in
Arizona.
That is what has happened. During the building and construction of
that fence, we were driving these individuals who wanted to come to the
United States to take the jobs which employers offered to them--and
they shouldn't have offered it if we had an effective system--they had
to travel across the great desert, they had to travel across the
mountains at dramatically higher risk in terms of their own safety and
in terms of their own security. The totality of the pressure for coming
here was not reduced and the totality of the people who got in here was
not reduced.
There was a dramatic increase in the cost of lives. That may mean
something to some people and it may not mean much to others.
Again, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, he talked about
the new technology, and he talked about the unmanned aerial vehicles
that we need to get and bring on board. He talked about new kinds of
technology, which he pointed out, and which I believe, and as the
testimony presents itself, is really effective in developing the
virtual wall, the virtual wall of technology, the virtual wall that can
provide the security which this Nation needs. I support that. I will
support certainly the resources to be able to do it.
But this is a feel-good amendment. We need to do things which are
serious and which are important in terms of the border. This doesn't
happen to meet that particular requirement.
I hope the Senate will accept it. I withhold the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the time is under the control of Senator
Sessions, who asked I take the floor next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me first of all note that I very strongly
support this amendment for one reason: It embodies the entirety of an
amendment which I offered in the Senate Judiciary Committee which was
agreed to. When the Senator from Massachusetts defends the underlying
bill, he is defending that amendment.
That amendment provides for about half of what we are talking about.
In fact, all of the language of that amendment is also included in the
amendment of Senator Sessions. Why do I know about that? It was my
amendment because it deals specifically with the State of Arizona. What
did we do? We went to the Border Patrol and we said: You will have
aircraft, sensors, cameras, border patrol, vehicles, fencing, all of
those things working in combination to try to secure the border.
What do you need, specifically? What are you recommending for the
fencing part of that? This is what they said: First of all, we need to
tear down some of the existing fencing because it is not very
effective. It is the old surplus landing mat. It is solid steel. It
stood vertically. The National Guard built that fencing and that is
what exists in the urban areas.
I wish my colleague from Massachusetts could visit the border in
Arizona and see how that solid-steel fencing has divided communities.
It is an ugly eyesore. It is an ineffective way to prevent people from
crossing, right in the middle of Nagales, AZ. On the other side from
Naco-Sonora, separated by this fence, we have a huge 30-foot-high or

[[Page S4659]]

20-foot-high barrier of solid steel. It is ugly. It is ineffective.
People can climb up the other side, and our Border Patrol cannot see
them because it is solid steel.
What the Border Patrol would like is a double fencing that you can
see through so they can see who is on the other side and what they are
about to do. Moreover, the biggest part of violence now is the rock
throwing that occurs. They cannot see what is on the other side of this
steel barrier.
The first point is they want to replace this landing mat fencing with
modern, up-to-date fencing that is probably double. That is to say,
there are two fences involved, as there are in California. That has
been extraordinarily effective to keep people out because you have a
patrolling in the middle. People may get over one fence, but by the
time they get over that fence the cameras spot them and are able to
direct Border Patrol to the area. They are not able to get over the
second fence so they cannot quickly melt into the rest of our society.
That is why this double fencing actually works.
In the area of San Diego, I am told that still no one has crossed
over the double or triple fencing. No one. In that sector of the
border, the apprehensions have gone down. This is good news because it
means there are not people crossing--from some 600,000 now down to
100,000. And that is the entire sector of San Diego. In the specific
area where there are 26 miles of fencing, no one gets across. That is
what we are trying to achieve in the urban areas.
The Senator from Massachusetts said all that has done is to drive
them out into the desert, where it is more dangerous and deaths have
increased. What is the point of that argument? Is the point that we
should simply provide an invitation for those who would like to cross
our border illegally, to do it in the same way as the urban area?
What the Border Patrol says works is a combination of things. Fencing
in the urban area, where large numbers of people congregate at one
time. We have seen the pictures of them rushing the border through the
San Diego port of entry, where 200 or 300 people at a time congregate,
rush the border, rush through, intermingle with the cars waiting to get
through. It is impossible to apprehend more than a handful of them.
That is one of the techniques.
We have to try to stop that. One way we do that in the urban area is
to have this fencing. Frankly, if I can get my colleagues from New
England or other States to come down, Members would agree it is not
very sightly. From an environmental standpoint, it is not good. And
from a good neighbor standpoint, it is not good to have this ugly
fencing. We would like something that looks good and does the job.
What the amendment in the underlying bill does, and it is the same
thing in Senator Session's amendment, it says we are going to replace
that landing mat fencing with the kind of fencing the Border Patrol
believes would be more effective. That is part of the reason for the
370 miles of fencing.
The Senator from Massachusetts derided the amendment as suggesting
that it was not just for the urban areas because, after all, 370 miles
of fencing is a lot of fencing. That is a big piece of the whole
border. Now, let's calm down and do the math. There are several hundred
towns along the border. As one should not argue against oneself when
one supports the underlying bill, here is what one is supporting. What
you are supporting is fencing in the urban areas, approximately 10
miles extended in either direction. The urban areas are maybe 5 or 6
miles and 2 or 3 miles beyond that. That is what the underlying bill
provides.

I will read briefly from parts of the underlying amendment:

(1) replace all aged, deteriorating, or damaged primary
fencing in the Tucson Sector located approximate to
population centers in Douglas, Nogales, Naco, and Lukeville,
Arizona with double- or triple-layered fencing running
parallel to the international boundary . . .

To extend it for a distance of not less than 2 miles beyond urban
areas except it shall extend west of Naco for a distance of 10 miles.
Then we talk about the Yuma Sector of Yuma, Somerton, and San Luis, so
there are 15 communities in the State of Arizona.
If you proximate 10 miles on either side of the midpoint of the
community, that comes out to 140 miles of fencing. If you add to that,
there is at least 26 miles in the San Diego area. I don't know how much
beyond that. If you add the 26 miles, that is 176 miles. There are many
other communities in California, but let's say there are four or five.
That gets you half of the 370 miles, and you have not even talked about
the longest part of the border in New Mexico and Texas.
My point is, if all you do is extend, to a modest degree, for more
than 10 miles on either side of the communities that are on the border,
you are easily up to 326 miles of fencing.
Why did the Border Patrol say it needed 326 miles of fencing? Because
they did the math. They counted up all of the communities and figured
how much fencing they needed in each of these urban areas and that is
what they asked for. This amendment simply takes the underlying bill,
which my colleague from Massachusetts is supporting, and adds
essentially the fencing for Texas, New Mexico, and California to that,
and the sum total we get is about 370 miles to replace existing fencing
and add fencing strictly in the urban areas, which will be effective as
the fencing in San Diego has been.
The Senator from Massachusetts says we need to secure the border, but
we should do it in a serious way. I submit that a virtual fence is not
a fence. A serious way means building some miles of actual fence. That
is what keeps the illegal immigrants from crossing illegally into the
United States. In combination with UAVs, helicopter, fixed-wing
surveillance--there is surveillance actually in other ways, as well,
which we do not need to get into--there are sensors, there are cameras,
there are people on patrol on horseback, on three-wheeled vehicles, on
four-wheeled vehicles, and you put all of those things together, and we
can build a combination of actual and virtual fencing that creates the
ability to control the border. This is what you do if you are serious
about controlling the border.
Finally, in the Judiciary Committee, we held hearings about what was
necessary to secure the border. We heard from the head of the Border
Patrol, David Aguilar. We heard from the former head of the Border
Patrol, we heard from the U.S. attorney from Arizona, we heard from a
couple of sheriffs on the border in Texas and Arizona. And we asked
them what was going on at the border and what they need to control the
border. Here are a couple of examples. David Aguilar said that over 10
percent of the people now apprehended coming into the country illegally
had criminal records. They were serious criminal records. We are not
talking about defacing public property. We are talking about murder,
rape, kidnaping, violent smuggling, drug crimes, and the like. More
than 10 percent. These people are deterred by fencing, and they need to
be stopped. So we are not talking about people trying to come into the
country to work.
The U.S. attorney for Arizona testified that crime, in the last year,
in terms of assaults in the border areas, has increased by 108 percent.
The reason is because the Border Patrol is finally getting to be a
sufficient number, and the fencing is doing a good enough job that we
are contesting the territory of the drug cartels, the smugglers, the
coyotes, and the criminals are fighting back to try to regain the
territory with weapons. Do not think rocks are not a lethal weapon. As
a result, we are seeing that there is some progress being made, but it
has increased the violence. The Border Patrol desperately needs more
fencing in order to protect their agents from these criminals on the
other side of the border.
It is beyond me why someone would deride a recommendation of the
Border Patrol for a little bit of fencing in the urban areas to protect
our officers who are out there trying to do their job, among other
things, to prevent violent criminals from entering the United States,
to prevent contraband drugs from entering the United States.
This is why we are adding a little bit of fencing. The border is
2,000 miles, roughly, and we are talking 370 miles, representing
essentially the area of urban communities on the border. Bear in mind,
these are communities that straddle the border. In Douglas, until a few
years ago, there was a corral in the middle of town, and the border ran

[[Page S4660]]

through the middle of the corral. There was nothing but a corral. In
places right outside of town, there is a barbed-wire fence that is old
and rusty and now does not even have three strands. That is the border.

These are communities in which people work and live on both sides,
they cross frequently, and they are now subjected to a huge amount of
crime because of the elements that have moved into those communities to
transport drugs, to make a lot of money transporting illegal
immigrants, and to come across the border from countries other than
Mexico because they are criminals, and they figured out this is a good
way to get into the United States to do their crime. Who knows what
terrorists might be thinking.
The point of this amendment is to add, simply, a little bit more
fencing to what is already in the underlying bill in the urban areas of
the country to effectively secure the border which, after all, is what
we ought to be about here, to protect the people who live in the
vicinity of the fencing and to protect the officers we have put into
harm's way to do the job we want them to do.
I will conclude with this point. It has become very fashionable now
for everyone to say: We must secure the border. What this amendment
says is, if you are serious, if you really mean that, here is a very
modest little thing you can do, what the Border Patrol has recommended
it needs, to have a modest amount of real fencing which they say
protects themselves and protects American citizens.
I don't have the statistics on the top of my head, and maybe Senator
Cornyn does, but at the hearing we held in our subcommittee, the
testimony was that crime in the San Diego area where this fencing had
gone up had gone way down, but that San Diego and the Mexican citizens
on the other side of the border, likewise, have been subjected to a
huge increase in crime until that fence was built. Once the coyotes and
the cartels knew they could not come across in that area, they left.
And so did the crime.
This is a great amendment. It should be supported by all Members.
Crime in San Diego dropped by 56.3 percent between 1989 and 2000. If
you can cut the crime in half in a community by building this double
fence, and they did, and I don't hear anyone objecting to the double
fence in the area of San Diego, why shouldn't the other communities? If
anyone would like to come to the Senate and say that it was a mistake
to build that double fence in the area of San Diego, I would like to
ask them to please do it. I would love to hear the reason why that is
not a good idea.
All we are asking is that in the other urban areas along the border,
the same kind of fencing be built to protect our law enforcement
officials and the citizens of those areas and to help prevent this kind
of smuggling across our border--nothing more, nothing less. This is a
modest amendment, and it should be unanimously agreed to by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Arizona. There is no more
harder working, no more knowledgeable Senator in this Senate on the
issues involving the border than he. I thank him for his eloquent
remarks.
I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Senator Cornyn
of Texas who, like myself, is one of the most knowledgeable people in
this Senate who has been engaged in this debate from the beginning and
whose advice and recommendations I have valued throughout. So I will
yield to Senator Cornyn for such time as he may choose to use.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on our
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-eight minutes.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I assure my colleagues, I will not use but
a fraction of that time.
I think one of the things that makes this issue of fences and walls
along the border so controversial is because walls and fences are
powerful symbols. Indeed, I know, in talking to some of our friends on
the other side of the border, they worry what the message is America
would send if we were to build, let's say hypothetically, a 2,000-mile
wall between America and Mexico.
Well, suffice it to say that I think, as we have had this debate both
in the Judiciary Committee and now here on the floor of the Senate--and
as a lot of us have been working to try to better understand what is
actually needed by the Border Patrol to secure our borders--our
thinking has evolved.
Indeed, I was one of those who initially was somewhat skeptical of
the idea of a wall or a fence. But now I find myself supporting this
amendment. I would like to explain just for a minute why.
We sometimes joke among ourselves that if, in fact, Congress was to
authorize and the Department of Homeland Security was to build a 2,000-
mile wall, 50-feet high, across the border, it would probably see a
boom in the sale of 51-foot ladders or what we would see is a lot more
of those tunnels like we have seen in the news recently in California
and elsewhere, people going through a tunnel.
We all know, if you do not go over a wall or a fence, and you do not
go under a fence, you might go around the sides of the fence. So I have
wondered whether this is, in fact, the most effective way to deal with
the problem.
As I have told my colleagues, coming from a State that has 1,600
miles of common border with the country of Mexico, I hope you will go
look at it and see what we are talking about. I fear sometimes when
people talk about the border they are relying more on their
recollection, perhaps, of a movie they have seen or a novel they have
read. It is a tough and difficult place to deal with, and you can
appreciate, when you go to the border, the challenges the Border Patrol
has and why it is so easy, relatively speaking, for people who want to
come across that border into the United States, notwithstanding our
efforts to try to secure it.
But I do not believe we ought to seal the border. I do not believe we
ought to close the border. But I do believe we ought to secure the
border. And I believe now that some strategic barriers--and, yes, even
some fencing, such as Senator Kyl and Senator Sessions have described--
would be helpful.
Now, how did I arrive at that conclusion? Well, because we held a
number of hearings. As chairman of the Immigration and Border Security
and Citizenship Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, we have had a
number of hearings, including the experts who have told us that, yes,
it would be helpful in some areas along this 2,000-mile border to have
some strategic barriers, some fences, some ways to funnel traffic so
that the Border Patrol can have an easier job trying to actually detain
people who come into the country illegally.
I would point out that under Senator Sessions' amendment, it would
authorize the building of up to about 370 miles of fence. About 70
miles is already in place. So really we are talking about 15 percent of
that 2,000-mile border which would be authorized to be built subject to
the good judgment and discretion and professional decisions of the
folks who are in charge. The Border Patrol, the Department of Homeland
Security, they would be the ones deciding it because, frankly, I do not
think we here in Washington are in any position to decide where it
ought to go. We ought to leave it to the experts.
But the fact is, it is expensive. This leads me again to remind my
colleagues that we can pass some pretty expansive legislation here, we
can talk in grandiose terms about border security, worksite
verification, and dealing with this great challenge that confronts us,
but sooner or later we are going to have to pay for it. And the $1.9
billion the Senator from New Hampshire succeeded in getting
appropriated in the supplemental appropriations bill is a mere
downpayment on what it is going to cost. So I hope Senators who talk in
very sincere terms, no doubt, about making sure this bill is
enforceable will be just as emphatic when it comes to paying for these
measures.
Let me say that we are not just talking about putting up some fencing
in order to secure our borders. We are talking about doubling the
number of Border Patrol agents. This is the primary law enforcement
agency that is responsible for providing border security. The President
announced on Monday night that he was going to authorize up to 6,000
National Guard troops to assist the Border Patrol on a stopgap

[[Page S4661]]

basis, not to perform law enforcement per se but to provide support to
the Border Patrol while we recruit and train more Border Patrol agents.

Now, one thing I do not understand is why we are told that the Border
Patrol can only train 1,500 Border Patrol agents a year. We need more,
and we need them faster. In the last 3 years, the United States and the
coalition partners have trained a quarter of a million Iraqi security
officers and police and army. Why we can train, with the assistance of
our coalition partners, 250,000 Iraqis but we can only train 1,500
Border Patrol agents a year is beyond me. We need to find out why that
is and fix it.
But I sincerely believe what we need is a combination of more boots
on the ground--we need human beings. We need to roughly double the
number of Border Patrol agents to about 20,000. And just by way of a
footnote, let me point out in New York City alone there are about
40,000 police officers. So we are talking about half the number of law
enforcement agents along our 2,000-mile border than they have in New
York City. But they need some help.
We need the force multiplier that comes with technology. I know
others have talked about this, but a couple days ago I went out to Fort
Belvoir, VA, out to the Army's night vision lab and their sensor lab
where they actually develop this technology for use by our military in
places such as Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. What they
demonstrated for me is some of the technology that is relatively
inexpensive that is already being used by our military in places such
as Afghanistan and Iraq that could be easily used by the Department of
Homeland Security along the border. And this ranges from unmanned
aerial vehicles that are airplanes, basically, with cameras on them
that weigh about 10 pounds that can stay in the air for up to 4 hours
at a time, which can also tie into ground sensors and cameras, thermal
imagery, radar, and other things that could be used to be a force
multiplier for our Border Patrol.
I think what we need is a combination of things to provide that
security along the border. I do not favor a 2,000-mile wall, but I do
not see what the objection is to using the necessary tools that are
required in order to provide some chance of stopping the flow of
humanity across our border.
Last year alone, 1.19 million people were detained coming across our
southern border--1.1 million people. And people wonder why we have a
problem? People wonder why we have a problem with controlling our
borders when we do not have enough people, we do not have the
technology, we do not have the strategic barriers there?
Well, part of the problem is we only have about 20,000 detention
beds--20,000. That is the reason the Department of Homeland Security is
engaged in this flawed idea of catch and release. In other words, you
catch 1.1 million people, you send people back home more or less
immediately who come from Mexico, a contiguous nation. But if they come
from other countries, then we have to make arrangements to send folks
back where they came from. That requires them to be detained somewhere
for a while.
With only 20,000 detention beds, and 250,000, roughly, people coming
from countries other than Mexico last year alone, you can see the
problem. So people are released on their own recognizance and asked to
come back for their deportation hearing 30 days hence. And guess what.
Most of them do not show up. It makes you kind of wonder about the ones
who do, knowing, as they must, that we do not have the people, the
technology, and the infrastructure in place actually to enforce the
law. Well, that is what we are trying to fix here.
So let me say, in conclusion, I think we have all evolved in our
understanding of what it is going to take to solve this problem. I
believe we have seen some good movement across the aisle on a
bipartisan basis to try to come up with solutions. And I have been led
to conclude--as a result of all the discussions and debates we have
had, the hearings we have had in the Judiciary Committee, listening to
the experts who are in a position to know--that this is what they need.
Secretary Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security told a
number of us this is what he needed in order to get the job done. I
believe we have an obligation to give our law enforcement officials the
tools they actually need to get it done, and to do otherwise would be
some sort of cruel joke, to pretend we are actually serious about
dealing with this problem but yet failing to provide those same
officials the tools they need in order to get the job done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am not opposed to fences and vehicle
barriers. They are included in the bill. It is our understanding there
are some places where fencing can be effective to stop illegal
immigration into America. But what we have here has become a symbol for
the rightwing in American politics: the symbol of a fence, a fence
between America and Mexico.
If you have been a student of politics for a few minutes or a few
days, you will know where this is going to end. This proposal by
Senator Sessions would construct a fence of about 370 miles in length.
The House Republicans want to build a fence that is 2,000 miles long.
So what will likely happen, should this amendment pass the Senate and
go to conference, is we will split the difference, and we will end up
with a fence that is over 1,000 miles long on America's southern
border. And perhaps, as Senator Kennedy has suggested, it will be the
downpayment for a fence that would stretch for 2,000 miles.
They have come down from their original request of a 700- or 800-mile
fence. That was going to be the first thing asked for, when somebody
suggested that would be a fence the distance of which could stretch
from the Washington Monument to the Sears Tower in Chicago. That is the
distance we are talking about--700 or 800 miles--but that could be the
ultimate result here.
The obvious question we have to ask ourselves--I think two
questions--No. 1, will it work? If you build a fence like this, will it
work? Will it hold people back or will it become our ``Maginot Line''?
The Maginot Line was the line of defense built by France after World
War I to stop the Germans should they ever want to attack again. And
the French invested a great sum of money and all of their national
security in the idea they could build a line that the Germans could
never cross. They waited, knowing they were secure, until World War II
began and the German panzers just crushed the Maginot Line and came
roaring over it, destroying all of their feelings that they were safe
forever.
I feel the same way about this fence. What fence is it that we will
build that cannot be tunneled under, that you cannot go over or around?
Is this really going to be an effective deterrent?
What we have suggested in the bill, which is completely full of ideas
on enforcement, is to use technology. It may not be this high fence
they want to build is the best thing for us. The technology we have
available might be much better. We can have a virtual fence which
achieves much more than a fence, which would cost us millions of
dollars and be easily overcome. So in the first instance, I am
concerned where this will end, how long this fence will be, and
whether, in the end, we will be safer in building it.
The second thing is the image it creates of a country, that our
relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two
countries. I believe we should have a more positive outlook toward
where we are going to be. Working with the Mexican Government, working
with them toward the goal of stopping illegal immigration, is far
better than the confrontation of a fence or a wall. I think it could
bring us to a day when we will have our borders under control, with all
we invest in this bill, with what we do by way of enforcement at the
border and in the workplace, and with what we do with those who are
currently here in the United States. It is a coordinated and
comprehensive approach. It isn't just a matter of building a fence. It
isn't a matter of enforcement alone. It is enforcement as a starting
point.

My concern about this fence, which is likely to end up being over
1,000 miles long, is that it will not protect America. It will not stop
the illegal flow of immigration. It would create an image of America
which I am not sure we would be proud of in years to come. I will
oppose this amendment.

[[Page S4662]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to bring some relevant and
important facts to the debate. As we have pointed out, we are for
security of the border. We have outlined, in my earlier comments, the
provisions in this legislation which would help to achieve that. I want
to point out some of the history of the building of a fence and the
cost of the building of a fence.
When the first fence was going to be built, Congressman Hunter, the
House's largest proponent of fencing, originally estimated the cost of
completing the 14 miles of fencing in San Diego at $14 million, the
same as the current estimate, I believe, of the Senator from Alabama.
Fencing was completed over 11 miles, and the cost was more than 200
percent over budget, costing $42 million. The real cost of construction
ended up being more than $3.8 million per mile. At that rate, a
complete fence across the U.S.-Mexican border would cost $7.6 billion.
As was referenced, the House of Representatives position calls for a
700-mile fence. Congressman Hunter boasts of securing an additional $35
million for the last 3 miles of fencing in San Diego, approximately $12
million per mile. These costs are significantly higher because of
difficult terrain. Much of the U.S. border with Mexico crosses mountain
terrain such as these 3 miles, potentially driving up the cost of
borderwide security.
Let's look at what happened in terms of people. Currently, there are
70 miles of fencing along the U.S.- Mexican border, including 40 miles
in California and 25 in Arizona. Partial fencing of the U.S.-Mexican
border shifted migrant traffic from one area to the other. The
apprehensions dropped in San Diego from a high of 450,000 in 1994, when
fencing construction began, to a low of 136,000 in 2005, a reduction of
70 percent. Over the same period, the apprehensions in the Tucson
sector, covering most of Arizona, rose from 137,000 in 1994 to 489,000,
almost an exact shift in migrant traffic from San Diego to Arizona. So
the number of apprehensions along the U.S. border from 1994 to 2005 has
barely fluctuated, ranging from 900,000 to well over a million per
year.
What the facts show is that having large-scale fences has been
grossly inadequate, if we are talking about security. We need to have
real, effective security, as we discussed earlier, the virtual fence,
using the latest in technology, and also enforcement of laws in the
workplace which will discourage people from coming and which those who
have studied this believe to be the most effective.
We are talking about a cost of billions of dollars for something that
has not been shown to be effective in achieving an outcome. There are
ways of securing the border, but this is not the way to do so, for the
reasons I outlined earlier and the reasons I cited at this time. We
have evaluations of fencing in our legislation. We ought to find out
what is the most effective way, whether we use the virtual fence, the
newer technologies, what is having the best and most positive result,
and invest in that. That is what we ought to do.
What we are doing this afternoon is a good-feeling vote, in terms of
trying to give some assurances to the American people, which history
has shown is highly costly, and in terms of the amount of resources we
are likely to expend has not been effective.
For the reason of raising the kinds of conflicts that we are going to
have with our neighbors to the south rather than working with them
effectively, there are better and more effective ways of securing the
border.

I hope this amendment will be defeated.
As I understand it, there is a desire to vote at 2:30. I think I have
used about all my time. I would be glad to yield back the time, maybe
move on to another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, we are talking about a possible 2:30
vote. The day is badly fragmented with a signing ceremony at the White
House at 1:45, a briefing by Director Negroponte at 3, and a social at
the White House at 5. It is pretty hard to see how we get any business
done when we dodge in and out of the raindrops in a hurricane. But we
are talking about a 2:30 vote. If we are to have it, I wanted to stack
three votes at that time. We are going to respect what Senator Reid
wants to do, to take them up one at a time, but we are asking Senator
Vitter to come over right now because we are about to wrap up. Senator
Sessions wants 10 more minutes. I will speak briefly. Then we will
yield back the remainder of the time. Then after Senator Vitter's
amendment is heard--we have already argued Senator Inhofe's amendment--
we may be in a position to stack three votes at 2:30 or very close to
that time. That is what we are looking toward.
I yield to Senator Sessions for his final 10 minutes and yield back
the remainder of the time to move on to Senator Vitter's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we are at a point where everybody in
this body--and overwhelmingly, the American people--wants to see a
lawful system of immigration in America. We can all disagree about what
to do about the people who have come here illegally already. There are
a lot of ideas about that. We can disagree about what our policy should
be in the future, but we pretty well have been unified on that point.
The 370 miles of fencing that we are talking about, plus barriers for
vehicle traffic in a larger amount, has the support of Secretary of
Homeland Security Chertoff and the administration. They believe it is a
good expenditure, and they are prepared to help find the money to fund
it because it will save money in the long run. It is a one-time
expenditure and will be a multiplier of the effectiveness of every
single Border Patrol agent.
As we have heard from Senators Cornyn and Kyl, who have visited the
border on a regular basis, we have borders that run right through the
middle of towns and communities. How could we possibly put enough
agents at every corner, every street to guard it? We need to do better
and we can do better.
I am amused by my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, saying
there is going to be 1,000 miles of fencing. I had originally offered
in committee 700 miles. That is what the House passed. We have now come
in and listened to the administration and proposed a modest figure of
370 total, counting portions of the fence already built in San Diego,
and those being refurbished in Arizona. The House is at 700. So the
argument that it is going to be a fence across the whole border or the
argument that we are going to build 1,000 miles of fence is not very
plausible. Frankly, if the Senate is at 370 and the House is at 700, we
are not likely to come out with a compromise at 1,000. What kind of
argument is that?
Then we heard the argument that it is going to bankrupt America. We
spend over $800 billion a year. We can't find a billion dollars to fix
this problem? We certainly can. They ask: Will it work? I say let them
go to San Diego. Let them go there and talk to the people on both sides
of the border where the whole county showed a 56-percent reduction in
crime, and on both sides of that fence the economy is booming. It is
safe and secure. The smugglers and dope dealers are gone, and things
are much better off. It is a positive development. Why are we having
opposition to it?
Senator Kyl came close to the truth when he said: Whenever anything
gets proposed--I am paraphrasing--that might actually work, we get an
objection to it. What about a good identifier card? They say something
like that makes sense, but every time we get close to having a good
biometric identifier card that would actually work, we get all kinds of
objections.
There is no doubt that some people believe in open borders. There are
people who do not want to see this immigration system become a lawful
system. I will repeat, we are a nation of immigrants. We are going to
increase the number of immigrants. I will support increasing the number
of lawful immigrants into our country by a reasonable amount, not three
to five times the current level that is in this bill today, even after
we reduced the numbers last night. Three to five times is way out of
the range of what should be accepted. But we are going to increase
immigration. We are not against immigration. I reject that. We want to
travel across the border, particularly our

[[Page S4663]]

Mexican border. It is a very busy place. Senators Kyl and Cornyn are
familiar with that border, and they wouldn't support anything that
would back that up.
I am confident we are on the right track. We have checked with a
series of contractors and looked at the numbers. The best estimate we
get is that the kind of premier fence we are talking about would be at
most $3.2 million per mile, and that would, at 296 miles of new fencing
cost approximately $940 million, not $14 billion. Where did that come
from? That is not so. It will probably cost around a billion dollars.
Remember, as Senator Cornyn reminded us, 1.1 million people are being
arrested each day at that border, 1.1 million. How much does it cost to
detain and process those people and deport them and move them out of
the country or release them or catch and release, in which they then
abscond and don't show up to be deported? Is it not better to reduce
the number of arrests by creating an effective system that prevents
crossing the border rather than all the expense of detecting and
apprehending and deporting?
We have had some good discussion. We have talked about these issues
in a number of ways. With regard to the San Diego fence, according to
the FBI crime index, crime in that county dropped 56.3 percent between
1989 and 2000, after the fence was erected. Vehicle drive-throughs in
the region have fallen between 6 to 10 per day before the construction
of the border infrastructure to only 4 drive-throughs in 2004 for the
year. And those occurred only where the secondary fence is incomplete.
According to the numbers provided by the San Diego sector of the
Border Patrol, in February of 2004, apprehensions decreased from
531,609. The American people need to hear this as well as Senators. In
2004, the apprehensions on the San Diego, CA, sector of the border only
were 532,689 apprehensions. How expensive is that? Those figures were
in 1993. And in 2003, after the fence was built, it dropped to 111,000
across that whole sector.
So the idea that the fence had no impact and everybody went around it
is not true. It sent a message that we were serious about creating a
border that works, and it reduced by four-fifths the numbers of
arrests. How much money did that save? How much time did that save? And
it left the Border Patrol officers available to do a lot of different
things.
In 1993, authorities at the San Diego border apprehended over 58,000
pounds of marijuana coming across the border from Mexico. In 2003,
after the fence, the tide of drugs was reduced and only 36,000 pounds
of marijuana were apprehended, and cocaine smuggling decreased from
1,200 pounds to 150 pounds. That is some of the progress that was made.
This is a narrow amendment, concentrating on the most important 800,
500, or 350 miles of fencing, with 500 miles of barriers. It is focused
and it is what the Department of Homeland Security says they need. It
is reasonable in cost. It will save money considerably over the long
run. It is a one-time expenditure, but it can save us from having
thousands of permanent investigators, permanent prison bed spaces, and
things of that nature. The key to it is to change the perception and
the reality of how we are doing business.
Let me conclude with that thought. It is important for this country
to make clear to our own citizens and to the world that a lawful system
is going to be created, that this is no longer any open border. Once
that happens, and once that is absolutely clear, we are going to have
fewer people attempt to come in. It is that simple. How do you do it?
Well, the President's call out to the National Guard is one signal
that things have changed. Business as usual is over. Utilizing fencing
is important. Increasing bed spaces and increasing agents along the
border are important. All those things can help us reach a tipping
point, a magic point on the seesaw or the balance scale. When it tips,
it is going to tip so that people will find out it makes more sense to
apply to come here legally, according to our laws, rather than coming
in illegally. It will add to the workplace enforcement on top of that,
and you will become serious about immigration.
We can do this. It is not hopeless or impossible. For a reasonable
cost, we can tip the scales from illegality to legality. That is what
the American people are asking us to do. A vote for this amendment is a
step in that direction.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, when the Judiciary Committee met to
consider a comprehensive immigration reform bill, we adopted an
amendment by Senator Kyl on limited fences and barriers along the
border. I supported that amendment. It called for replacing and
repairing barriers in certain border towns.
Now Senator Sessions is offering an amendment to correct what Senator
Kyl had included in the Judiciary Committee bill and that was
incorporated in the underlying bill now before the Senate. I had
thought that the Senator from Arizona had consulted with the
administration and, in particular, with the Department of Homeland
Security before offering his amendment and that the committee action
would have been sufficient. Apparently Senator Sessions and his
cosponsors, which include a number of Republican Senators on the
Judiciary Committee, think that the Kyl amendment was inadequate. They
say that their discussions with Secretary Chertoff, the Border Patrol,
and Homeland Security lead them to seek a needed change and correction.
As Senator Kennedy noted, the fact may well be that the Secretary and
the administration have all the legal authority they need without this
amendment to do what they think needs to be done. That they have not
done more before now was not for the lack of authority as far as I
know. Nor has Congress refused to provide such authority as may have
been necessary or that has been requested by the administration.
On this point, I quote a column from today's Roll Call authored by
Norman Ornstein. He concludes:

For nearly five years, we drastically have underfunded our
first responders while failing to coordinate plans across
state and regional lines. We still do not have interoperable
communications among first responders. We have underfunded
border security despite warnings that immigration issues were
intertwined with basic security issues. No wonder this issue
has exploded on the national scene, and no wonder we are
seeing this belated move to ``solve'' the problem with a
National Guard presence.
Where has Congress been in all of this? For nearly five
years, absent without leave. It's been AWOL on oversight,
AWOL on serious legislation to deal with either the lapses in
the department or the broader problem of border security,
AWOL on serious deliberations about broader immigration
issues, AWOL on seeking bipartisan solutions for difficult
problems that need some consensus in the middle. And it's
been worse than AWOL in making sure that we have institutions
of governance after the next massive attack. Congress'
approval rating is 22 percent? That seems too high.

Sadly, there is much truth in what Mr. Ornstein writes. During
Republican congressional control they have slavishly taken their cues
from the Republican administration and defended its every misstep.
With respect to the Sessions amendment I have questions, questions
about its value and whether it is meant to signal some kind of
``fortress America'' approach to real world problems. I also have
questions about its cost and how the Senator from Alabama intends to
pay for its additional costs. He said during the course of the debate
that he estimated that it would cost an additional billion dollars. On
the day that the President is signing into law billions of dollars of
additional tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, I wonder whether we
might not have been wiser to set aside a billion dollars from those tax
breaks being provided millionaires to help fund enforcement measures
for America's border security.
The Congressional Budget Office says that this bill will require more
than $54 billion in expenditures. The Sessions amendment will add
additional costs. Is it several hundred million dollars, a billion
dollars, as the Senator from Alabama has estimated, or more? The
Senator from Texas has said that this bill is merely a downpayment on
what it will cost to secure our borders. I wonder what the Senator from
Texas believes this will eventually cost. I wonder how he intends to
pay for these measures. Under Republican leadership we are already
running the largest annual deficits in history and have turned a $5
trillion surplus into a projected debt of somewhere between $8 trillion
to $10 trillion.

[[Page S4664]]

Earlier today the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee came to the Senate to make an extraordinary
statement. I am sorry he spoke to an almost empty floor. I urge all
Senators to consider his remarks. The Senator from New Hampshire is
someone I have worked with to provide interoperable communications to
law enforcement along the shared border of our States. He is one of the
most straight-talking Members of the Senate and he demonstrated that
again today. He said today that the $1.9 billion capital account he had
sought to establish for border security improvements is gone, that it
has been transferred to operational needs. In addition, he expressed
regret for having had to structure his amendment to the emergency
supplemental appropriations bill to take funds from military accounts
in order to allocate it to border security.
In that regard, the Democratic leader has been proven right in his
amendment that would have provided the $1.9 billion without taking
funds from our troops. Now the Senator from New Hampshire says that he
understands that his amendment will not survive the House-Senate
emergency supplemental appropriations conference. The Democratic leader
was right to offer his amendment and the Senate would have been wiser
had it adopted it to fund border security with real dollars. As matters
now stand, if Senator Gregg is correct, it appears there is no money in
the budget or available to fund these measures. Let us not make false
promises to the American people about border security. Let us not call
for measures that we will not be able to pay for but wish to trumpet.
I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Roll Call, May 17, 2006]

Congress' Neglect of Immigration Is Why We're Stuck Today

(By Norman Ornstein)

Why do we need members of the National Guard patrolling our
borders? It is a question, frankly, that doesn't have a very
edifying answer. The National Guard is spread way too thin as
it is, and I am not sure how many members are eager to go
from two tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan to a new tour
in Nogales.
If the response to that is, ``Well, we are just sending
token numbers''--6,000--the counter-response is, ``Why mess
with the Guard for token purposes when the results will
include sharper tension with Mexico over the issue of
militarizing the border and fodder for Hugo Chavez and our
other hemispheric adversaries to dump on the imperialist and
militaristic USA?'' Then there's the issue of whether
anything in the training of the National Guard prepares them
for border patrol work, whether on the front lines or back in
the office doing paperwork.
Of course, we know the less edifying answers. The president
needed a symbol of his determination to toughen the borders
in order to pacify his base and to get conservatives in
Congress to consider the immigration plan advanced by Sens.
John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) to
legalize many of the illegals who have been in the country
for years without having to expel 12 million people or more.
This is necessary because the House Republican leadership
will not move a bill that has broad bipartisan support if it
comes at the expense of losing even a sliver of the party's
ideological base. There is another reason. We need some
supplements for the undermanned border patrol forces who are
themselves spread way too thin. The failures of the border
patrol--not just caused by inadequate numbers but also by
dysfunction within their agency and a continuing set of
problems with coordinating responsibilities with federal
customs and immigration officials--have led to serious public
unhappiness in border states, especially Arizona, New Mexico
and Texas, and a need for some kind of governmental response.
I find it more disturbing to dwell on the dynamics of this
issue after seeing the film United 93 over the weekend. It is
a superb movie, and the one-word description of it given by
virtually everyone who has seen it--``harrowing''--is
accurate. But to a student of government, the harrowing part
goes well beyond reliving the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks and watching a graphic portrayal of a suicide-
hijacking mission. The movie portrays a government in near-
chaos, with the limited communication between the Federal
Aviation Administration, air traffic controllers and the
military filled with misinformation and nearly inexplicable
delays. The military was unable to scramble any significant
force to protect the airspace around Washington, D.C., for a
long time after it became clear that the capital--and the
Capitol--were obvious targets of the terrorist attack.
Perhaps others left the theater with a belief that the
chaos was understandable; after all, who would have imagined
a broad-based, concerted effort by suicidal terrorists to
kill thousands of people in coordinated attacks on American
soil? Most moviegoers probably felt a small sense of relief
that at least now, more than four years later, we have
learned some lessons, beefed up the communications among
these agencies and the rapid response necessary when
another attack occurs. But I did not.
The response by the federal government since Sept. 11 has
been reluctant, halting and generally ineffectual in most
areas of homeland security. I have no reason to believe that
we have had a systematic effort to improve communications and
coordination--not just between the FAA and the Pentagon but
among other agencies that might be on the front lines in the
next attack, which is not likely to come from commercial
airliners.
I also know that the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security--long after it was clear that the office setup in
the White House was inadequate to the task--was done in a
textbook fashion, specifically a textbook showing how not to
do a major reorganization. Instead of focusing on the
problems in border security by integrating the jobs of border
patrol, customs, immigration and the Coast Guard, and instead
of focusing intensely on crafting a strong bureaucratic
culture around their shared missions, the White House and
Congress brought together 20 disparate units in a massive
reorganization that hasn't come close to working and will
take many more years to become functional.
We saw what happened with Hurricane Katrina, and the
problems with the Federal Emergency Management Agency are
manifest in the border area and many others. We are woefully
unprepared to deal with a biological attack, a pandemic, a
massive natural disaster or another broad-based terrorist
attack. One is coming--we just don't know when. United 93
underscores the ominous reality that al-Qaida takes a long
time doing its planning before making its move. It is surely
planning the next one as I write.
For nearly five years, we drastically have underfunded our
first responders while failing to coordinate plans across
state and regional lines. We still do not have interoperable
communications among first responders. We have underfunded
border security despite warnings that immigration issues were
intertwined with basic security issues. No wonder this issue
has exploded on the national scene, and no wonder we are
seeing this belated move to ``solve'' the problem with a
National Guard presence.
Where has Congress been in all of this? For nearly five
years, absent without leave. It's been AWOL on oversight,
AWOL on serious legislation to deal with either the lapses in
the department or the broader problems of border security,
AWOL on serious deliberation about broader immigration
issues, AWOL on seeking bipartisan solutions for difficult
problems that need some consensus in the middle. And it's
been worse than AWOL in making sure that we have institutions
of governance after the next massive attack. Congress'
approval rating is 22 percent? That seems too high.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the issue of border security is
obviously a vital matter. The assurances that we will be able to check
the flow of illegal immigrants will materially aid in the passage of
this bill, a comprehensive bill--if assurances can be given that the
border is secure and also with employer sanctions.
I think the Senator from Alabama has submitted a good amendment. It
does not have the overtone of the enormous fence along the entire
border, stretching 2,000 miles. It is targeted. We have been advised by
the administration, by Secretary Chertoff, that there is support for
the amendment of the Senator from Alabama. That is about what they are
looking for. They have made a detailed analysis. Secretary Chertoff met
with the Judiciary Committee on a very extensive briefing 2 weeks ago.
We talked about this at length. For those reasons, I plan to support
the Sessions amendment.
Madam President, I am prepared to yield back all time if Senator
Sessions and Senator Kennedy are prepared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SPECTER. If we can yield back time, we are prepared to go on to
another amendment. We are trying to structure it so we will have three
votes in the range of 2:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I have not yielded back my time. I may
yield back my time. I will have to get a short quorum call if we are
going to ask consent on establishing--unless our leaders have agreed to
have the series, I would have a short quorum call until we can clear
that.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, while the Senator from Massachusetts

[[Page S4665]]

is working out the questions, I have discussed with him setting aside
temporarily the Sessions amendment so that we can proceed to the Vitter
amendment and not waste any time. Madam President, I have discussed it
with Senator Vitter, who is agreeable with an hour and a half equally
divided. I have made that suggestion to Senator Kennedy. He is going to
run it by his leadership to see if it is acceptable on his side. Why
don't we proceed as if it is so that Senator Vitter is recognized now
and starts to talk, and it will count against his time when we finally
get the agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time on the Sessions amendment yielded
back?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I yield back my time.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield back my time and Senator Sessions yields back
his time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. SPECTER. I think the record is closed on the Sessions amendment,
and we are now proceeding to the Vitter amendment, and we will await
Senator Kennedy's comment as to the unanimous consent request on an
hour and a half. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

Amendment No. 3963

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3963.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Sessions amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) proposes an
amendment numbered 3963.

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

(Purpose: To strike the provisions related to certain undocumented
individuals)

Strike sections 601 through 614.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I bring before the Senate an important
amendment, I believe, which goes to the heart of so many American
concerns about the bill before us.
I must say, in the beginning discussion of this amendment, that I
have grave concerns about this bill. I think it is a mistake in many
aspects. I think it ignores history and ignores very specific, concrete
experience. Not too long ago, in 1986, Congress passed similar
measures, albeit on a much smaller scale, which ultimately and clearly
failed to solve the immigration problem.
I am very fearful that we are repeating history, only on a much
broader, much bigger, much more dangerous scale. My amendment goes to
the heart of those concerns, goes to the heart of the matter, goes to
the absolute heart of what so many Americans find most objectionable
about the bill on the floor. That is what I would characterize what
tens of millions of Americans characterize as amnesty provisions in
this bill.
In introducing this amendment, let me thank the many coauthors I have
who are in strong support of it: Senators Grassley, Chambliss, and
Santorum. Also, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be added to
this list of original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. All of us join together with tens of millions of
Americans to simply say we cannot have amnesty provisions in this bill.
We cannot have anything approaching amnesty in this measure. So my
amendment would very clearly, very simply, withdraw those provisions
from the bill.
Madam President, as I noted while speaking on another amendment about
an hour ago, this is an interesting debate. The country, including the
Senate, is widely divided on the question in many respects. Passions
run deep from one end of the argument to the other. Yet to listen to
the debate, particularly on the Senate floor in the midst of a
fundamental disagreement, it is interesting that nobody says they are
for amnesty, and everybody says they are for enforcement.
But, of course, the devil is in the details. Of course, it depends on
what you mean by amnesty, what you mean by enforcement. And what I mean
by amnesty certainly covers many provisions of the underlying bill,
which my amendment would strike. More importantly, what tens of
millions of Americans know through common sense, basic reasoning is
amnesty is included in this underlying bill and we must take it out.
Maybe we can begin the discussion with what is amnesty. Well, the
President, in his speech 2 nights ago, said that he is not for amnesty
and ``they''--meaning illegal aliens--``should not be given an
automatic path to citizenship.'' What is an automatic path to
citizenship? The President himself, again, 2 nights ago, pointed to
this distinction: ``that middle ground''--the one he is advocating--
``recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant
who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for
many years and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record.''
So what the President points to, in terms of why the provisions in
this bill are not amnesty, is that distinction between folks who
crossed the border illegally very recently and those who have been here
for some time. I think it is very important, if we think about that
distinction, to look at the details of the bill.
I encourage my colleagues to actually read this bill. The devil is in
the details. If that were ever true, it is true in terms of this
legislation. It is important to read the bill and understand the
details. Yes, this bill does make a distinction between those who have
been in the country 5 years or longer and those who have been in the
country less than 5 years, and some other distinctions, 2 years and
between 2 and 5 years. But again, the devil is in the details.
How does an illegal immigrant prove that he has been in the country
over 5 years? You would assume the proof required is specific
documentation which has been verified by the Government or other
authentication sources. Those documents are certainly accepted, but
they are not required, because if an illegal immigrant doesn't have
those sources of documents--objective evidence--he or she can do
something else. He or she can get a piece of paper, declare that he or
she has been in the country over 5 years, sign his or her name to it,
and that is it. That is all that is required.
Well, if the President's argument that this is not amnesty in large
part hinges on this big distinction that we are not giving a path to
citizenship for those who have been in the country a shorter period of
time, should it not matter what documentary evidence is required?
Doesn't it make a farce of the whole distinction if that immigrant can
simply sign a piece of paper declaring otherwise? That obliterates the
entire distinction. That means, in fact, that we are making available
this fairly automatic path to citizenship to virtually everyone in the
country illegally.

The President also points to four requirements: This is not amnesty
because there is a penalty the immigrant has to pay because they have
to pay their taxes, because they have to learn English, and because
they have to be in a job for a number of years.
Again, I say to my fellow Senators and everyone watching this debate,
the devil is in the details. Let's look at this bill. Let's look at
what it requires.
No. 1, a penalty. It is true, the underlying bill means a person has
to pay $2,000--$2,000--which is less, in some cases far less, than many
legal immigrants pay to go through the legal process. Is it a penalty
when the amount of money required is the same or, in many cases, less
than a person who is following all the rules, doing everything we ask
of them, following the law, living by the law, becoming a legal
immigrant and a full citizen through the legal process?
No. 2, pay all their taxes. Well, not all their taxes. A person
doesn't have to pay all of their back taxes. They have to pay a certain
number of years; they do not have to go back for the entire length of
time that person was in the country. Again, they are being treated
better than the folks who have lived by the rules from the word go than
the folks who are citizens through the legal immigration process who
have had to pay taxes every step of the

[[Page S4666]]

way. Those folks who live by the rules have to pay all their taxes.
These folks do not have to pay all their back taxes by any stretch of
the imagination. The devil is in the details.
No. 3, learn English. Well, not necessarily learn English. The actual
requirement can be met simply by being enrolled in an approved English
language and history program. Again, the requirement can be met simply
by being enrolled in a program with no test at the end of the program
about proficiency or anything else.
And No. 4, work in a job for a number of years. Well, not the full
period for a number of years, only 60 percent of the time for a handful
of years.
Again, the devil is in the details, and I suggest that when the
American people look at those details and ask themselves, is this
amnesty, is this a fairly automatic path to citizenship, the answer
will clearly be yes.
What does this sort of amnesty program do? We can debate about that,
we can bring up hypotheticals, we can say I think it is going to do
this, may do that, but the sure answer is to study history--and not
ancient history, but recent history, going back only to 1986 because
the last time Congress acted on this matter in a major way, it put
together a package strikingly similar to this general package before
us, which included an amnesty provision for agricultural workers.
One of the most interesting exercises I performed in thinking about
this issue, in getting ready for this floor debate, was to go back to
that time period, the mid-1980s, and read some of the arguments made in
this Chamber, including the arguments of the folks who were for that
immigration reform proposal of 1986.
The arguments they made are strikingly similar to the arguments being
made by the proponents today: We need to do something comprehensive; it
can't be enforcement only; we need to do this provision for earned
citizenship, once, this one time, and then the problem will be solved
forever because we will have border security and will have dealt with
illegal immigrants then in our country.
What is the bottom line on that experiment doing exactly what we are
debating doing again? The bottom line is not very hopeful in terms of
solving the problem once and for all. The bottom line is back then the
flow of illegal aliens was 140,000 per year, and now the flow is
700,000 per year. So it didn't exactly stop the problem.
The bottom line is back then the number of illegal aliens in the
country was perhaps about 3 million, and today, by conservative
estimates, it is 12 million. It didn't exactly solve the problem.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield
for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, we have now worked out that we will
conclude Senator Vitter's amendment, then we will go to Senator Obama's
amendment, which I believe we can accept.
I ask unanimous consent that between now and 2 o'clock, the time will
be equally divided between Senator Vitter on one side and Senator
Kennedy and myself on the other.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
Mr. SPECTER. Senator Kennedy and I will divide the time evenly, and
we are agreed we will have two votes at 2:30 p.m. or perhaps 3 p.m. if
the Obama amendment is to have a vote, but I do not expect it. And we
preclude second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, there have been significant studies
since 1986 that have looked specifically at the impact of what Congress
did then. What do these studies show?
A 2000 report by the Center for Immigration Studies states:

INS estimates show that the 1986 amnesty almost certainly
increased illegal immigration, as the relatives of newly
legalized illegals came to the United States to join their
family members.

Again, these are INS statistics, not some think tank on the
conservative side. These INS statistics show that even though 2.7
million illegal aliens were granted lawful citizenship through the
amnesty program--and by the way, that was far more than anticipated--
within 10 years, a new illegal alien population had replaced all of
those and had grown to 5 million. That growth only continued.
Again, that growth today has gone from 140,000 illegal aliens
streaming across the border per year back in 1986 to 700,000 per year
today. That growth has been 3 million illegal aliens in the country
going back to 1986 to at least 12 million today.
There was another study in 1992, 6 years after the agricultural
amnesty program was passed. The Commission on Agricultural Workers
issued a report to Congress--so a specific report to Congress that
studied the effects, again, of the 1986 agricultural amnesty program.
First, the Commission found that the number of workers amnestied under
the bill had been severely underestimated. So the numbers that were
talked about, in fact, the true numbers were well more than that.
Second, the Commission found that the agricultural worker amnesty
only exacerbated existing problems:

Six years after IRCA was signed into law, the problems
within the system of agricultural labor continued to exist. .
. . In most areas, an increasing number of newly arriving
unauthorized workers compete for available jobs, reducing the
number of work hours available to all harvest workers and
contributing to lower annual earnings. . . .

Again, the bottom line is very clear. We had the same arguments back
then as today: Let's do this once, the problem is solved forever; we
will get tough with enforcement, we promise; really, we mean it. And
what happened? That 140,000 per year increased to 700,000 per year. The
problem of 3 million illegal aliens has increased to at least 12
million. We do need to study history and see what the impact of this
amnesty program in this bill will be.
This threat is particularly grave, and I think it is absolutely
certain that this will exacerbate the problem for the following simple
reason: In terms of border security, everyone--everyone--on the floor
of this body, everyone agrees that true border security cannot and will
not happen overnight. The best case, if we are sincere about it, if we
follow up this debate with adequate appropriations, the money, the
manpower, the resources, the focus, the best case is that we will get a
handle on our border in several years, perhaps 2 to 3 years, absolute
minimum. But, of course, the other elements of this bill would be
passed into law and would go into effect immediately. That is repeating
the exact mistake of 1986. It would be one thing to consider an amnesty
program down the road after we have acted on border security and proven
that we have executed meaningful border security.
I don't think I could be for it even in that circumstance. That would
be one thing. But what this bill does is something far different and
even far more dangerous. What this bill does is put that program into
effect now, immediately, move forward with that amnesty track
immediately, even though everyone agrees, best case, we will only have
meaningful border security in several years. So we establish the magnet
to draw more illegal aliens into the country before anyone pretends
that we have adequate border security or workplace security.
That is an even clearer reason that this is a big mistake and
repeating the mistakes of the past, particularly in the era around
1986, on a much grander and, therefore, more troublesome scale.
Another point I wish to make is the overall numbers these provisions
will lead to because I think there has been a lot of fuzzy math and a
lack of attention to detail on this question. Again, the devil is in
the details. Let's read this bill. Let's look at this bill and
understand the full consequences of this bill, including the amnesty
program.
The number folks toss around most commonly on the floor of the
Senate, as well as in the wider debate around the country, is 12
million illegal aliens are currently in this country. Most experts seem
to think that is a pretty minimum number. It could be significantly
above that. Again, we need to look at the bill, and we need to
understand the details because that is not the total number who may be
eligible for citizenship.
The bill is very liberal and very broad in granting this citizenship
path to an extended definition of family

[[Page S4667]]

members of these folks. So in fact, as a direct, immediate result of
this bill, we could well have about 30 million folks on that
citizenship path, getting on that path very quickly.
Over an extended number of years, that number will be far larger.
Estimates, for instance, by Robert Rector over a 20-year period after
enactment of this underlying bill is that it would mean a minimum of
103 million new folks gaining citizenship, possibly much higher. Again,
the devil is in the details. Let's look hard at the numbers. Let's add
it up. We are not talking about 12 million, we are talking about 30
million immediately. We are talking about huge numbers, 100 million or
more over 20 years.
Finally, the argument that is most often put up against avoiding this
sort of amnesty program is that we can't make felons of all these
millions of illegal aliens in the country. We can't round them up and
deport them. It is impractical. It may not be a good idea, even if we
could do it. President Bush made this specific argument 2 nights ago.
Many of my colleagues on the Senate floor have made the same argument.
The truth is that is not the alternative. That is a straw man, an
easy argument to push aside and defeat. That is not the practical
alternative at all. The practical alternative to rushing toward an
amnesty program is to do meaningful things with regard to enforcement
and other measures in the country that on their own can decrease the
illegal alien population in this country over time.
Let me mention six items in particular: Secure the borders through
Border Patrol agents, increase fencing, substantially increase
detention space and do that before we do anything else. Some provisions
are in this bill, but it is not being done before we move on to other
aspects of the bill.

No. 2: Implement strong and serious worksite enforcement measures
and, again, do that before other aspects of the bill are implemented.
No. 3: Eliminate document fraud through the use of biometrics,
immigration documents, and secure Social Security cards.
No. 4: Reform existing laws to reduce the incentive to work illegally
by providing the IRS with increased resources to investigate and
sanction both employers and illegal aliens for submitting fraudulent
tax returns, requiring the Social Security Administration to share
information with DHS when no match letters are sent to employers, and
barring illegal workers from counting work performed illegally toward
Social Security.
No. 5: Encourage State and local law enforcement to enforce
immigration laws themselves by giving them authority and by requiring
the Feds to reimburse them for expenses directly related to that
enforcement, and enhancing coordination and information sharing between
the State and local law enforcement and Federal immigration
authorities.
No. 6: Provide the Department of Homeland Security and the Department
of Justice with the necessary resources to perform their jobs.
Madam President, these six things, without an amnesty program, would,
in fact, lower the population of illegal aliens in this country over
time. Why would it lower it? Because it would remove the incentives for
those folks to stay here. It would remove the mechanism by which they
can successfully stay in this country and gain employment.
So again, it is a straw man to talk about making all of these people
felons. My amendment doesn't do that. We are not proposing that on the
floor of the Senate. It is a straw man to talk about rounding up 12
million people around the country. It is a completely false argument to
suggest that the only alternative to essentially amnesty is to have to
do that and deport all 12 million of these people.
The practical alternative, which we can absolutely do, is avoid
amnesty while implementing steps such as these six things. And that
will provide real border security and real workplace security by
demanding absolute requirements that ensure that folks getting jobs are
legal immigrants, not illegals. That is the practical alternative
which, over time, can dramatically reduce the illegal population in the
country.
I don't know of any single aspect of this bill before us on the floor
of the Senate that has Americans more concerned than these amnesty
provisions. It goes to the heart of this debate. It goes to the heart
of Americans' concerns that, once again, we are talking a good game
about enforcement, but we are not demanding that it happen before
considering other aspects of the bill. It goes to the heart of our
experience in 1986, when that agricultural worker amnesty program
clearly--clearly--was a huge part of the failure of that attempt to get
our hands around illegal immigration. It was a huge part of the flow
across our border, ballooning from 170,000 per year to 700,000 per
year, and a huge part of the illegal population in our country
skyrocketing from about 3 million to over 12 million.
So this is an important amendment that goes to the heart of so many
Americans' concerns about the bill which are reflected in townhall
meetings and discussions I have all across Louisiana. It is also
reflected in every major national public opinion poll on the subject.
Over and over again, Americans make very clear the huge majority want
enforcement. There is a legitimate debate about a temporary worker
program, but a huge majority have fundamental problems with these
provisions which they know, using common sense, particularly when they
understand the details of the bill, amount to absolute amnesty.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield myself
such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I could clarify the request to
understand that under our previous unanimous consent agreement on this
amendment, it will come out of the time of the opposition.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in a moment of seriousness, what is the
parliamentary situation? How much time on either side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 2 o'clock is divided between
the Senator from Louisiana and the Senators from Massachusetts and
Pennsylvania.
Mr. McCAIN. Then I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10
minutes, taken from the time of the opposition to the amendment, which
is the time of the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from
Louisiana. Of course, it is not amnesty. Of course, it is not amnesty.
I urge my colleagues, as well as specifically my colleague from
Louisiana--next time up, I am going to bring a dictionary out here to
confirm the definition of the word ``amnesty.'' The definition of the
word ``amnesty'' is forgiveness. We did that in the 1980s and it didn't
work. And to call the process that we require under this legislation
amnesty, frankly, distorts the debate and is an unfair interpretation
of it. I might add that the President of the United States, in a very
powerful statement to the American people, called it what it is, and
that is earned citizenship.
Now, I understand why the opponents of what we are trying to do would
call it amnesty. That is a great idea. Call it amnesty. Call it a
banana, if you want to. But the fact is that it is earned citizenship.
The reason why the opponents of this legislation keep calling it
amnesty is because they know that in poll after poll after poll, the
majority of the American people say let them earn their citizenship.
And when it is explained to the American people what we are requiring:
A criminal background check, payment of back taxes, payment of a $2,000
fine, 5 or 6 years before getting in line behind everyone else in order
to get a green card and then another 5 years or more, depending on how
this legislation comes out, before eligibility for citizenship, it is a
perversion of the word ``amnesty.'' Frankly, I am growing a little
weary of it. I am growing a little weary of it. We ought to be debating
this issue on its merits and only on the merits and not by labeling it
something it is not.
Again, the definition of amnesty is forgiveness--forgiveness. We are
not forgiving anything. We are trying to

[[Page S4668]]

find the best option--the best option--for an untenable situation bred
by 40 or 50 years of failed Government policies.
What are the options we have with these 11 million or 12 million
people? What are the options? One is the status quo. No one believes
that the status quo is acceptable, to have 11 million or 12 million
people washing around America's society with no protection of our laws,
no accountability, no identity. It is terrible for America and our
society. I believe the sponsors of this amendment and those of us who
vehemently oppose it, because basically it guts the entire proposal,
including the fact it is in direct contradiction to the leader of our
party, the position of the President of the United States on it--but
having said that, the status quo, I think my friend from Louisiana
would agree, is unacceptable.
So what is the other option? The other option is to round up 11
million people and find some way to transport them back to the country
from which they came. Many of them have been here since yesterday. Some
of them have been here 50 or 60 years. Some of them have children who
are fighting in Iraq. I am not interested--I wonder if the Senator from
Louisiana is interested--in calling a soldier in Iraq and saying: By
the way, while you are fighting today, we are deporting your parents. I
don't think we want to do that. I don't think we want to do that.
And by the way, the columnist George Will pointed out the other day
it would take some 200,000 buses from San Diego to Alaska in order to
transport these people at least back to Mexico, and then I don't know
how you get them back to other places.
So here we are with the option of the status quo, rounding up 11
million or 12 million people, or making it very clear that because they
have broken our laws, they must pay a very severe penalty--a very
severe penalty. And according to the Hagel-Martinez compromise, those
people who have been here less than 5 years will have to go back. And
in the case of 2 to 5 years, they will have to go back to a port of
embarkation. If they have been here since January 1, 2004, then they
have to go back completely--completely. If they have been here more
than 5 years, then obviously we have given them a way to earn
citizenship.
We passed an amendment that we supported that was the Kyl-Cornyn
amendment, supported by me and Senator Graham and Senator Kennedy and
others, that would prevent felons from ever being on the path to
citizenship. So what does that say? What this proposal now says is
anyone who came here innocently, who came here to work, which is the
reason why the overwhelming majority of them did, will have a chance to
earn their citizenship. And every time--every time--that the word
``amnesty'' is mentioned, I am going to try to get back on the floor
and refute that because the description in no way fits the word.
So here we are now with a comprehensive approach to immigration
reform which, probably, according to at least most polls, the American
people are, overall, supportive of, and a President of the United
States who gave what I think is one of the finest speeches of his
presidency on this issue, and we are now considering an amendment which
would fundamentally gut the entire proposal.
I want to quote from the President, again:

It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of
people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send
them across the border. There is a rational middle ground
between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every
illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That
middle ground recognizes that there are differences between
an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and
someone who has worked here for many years and has a home, a
family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal
immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay
should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law:
To pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job
for a number of years. People who meet these conditions
should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would
not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind
those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I
have described is not amnesty. It is a way for those who have
broken the law to pay their debt to society and demonstrate
the character that makes a good citizen.

I could not say it better than what the President of the United
States says.
Fundamentally, Americans are decent, humane, wonderful people, and
they recognize that these are human beings. They recognize that 99
percent of these people came here because they couldn't work, feed
their families and themselves where they came from. As former President
John F. Kennedy wrote, we are a nation of immigrants. We are all a
nation of immigrants. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the words
that were written back in the early 1960s by then-President Kennedy and
that apply to the world today. It has a unique and very timely
application. I intend to read from it as we proceed with the
consideration of this bill.
I understand that there are differing viewpoints about how to handle
this issue of illegal immigration. There is no State that has been more
burdened with the consequences of illegal immigration than mine. We
have broken borders. We have shootouts on our freeways. We have safe
houses where people are jammed in, in the most inhumane conditions. We
have the coyotes who take someone across the border and say: Tucson is
right over the hill. And more and more people every year are dying in
the desert. We understand that. That's why we understand that there has
to be a comprehensive approach to this issue and only a comprehensive
approach will reach the kind of resolution to this issue which has
plagued our Nation and, frankly, my State of Arizona, for a long period
of time.

I hope my colleagues will understand that this is basically an
eviscerating amendment we are considering. Have no doubt about it. If
you agree with the President of the United States and the majority of
Americans--poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of
Americans believe that we should allow people who are here illegally,
after a certain period of time, to earn their citizenship--then you
will vote against this amendment. If you believe that the only answer
to our immigration problem is to build a bigger wall, then I would
argue you are not totally aware of the conditions of the human heart
and that is that all people, wherever they are, who are created equal,
have the same ambitions for themselves and their families and their
children and their grandchildren that we did and our forebears did. Our
forebears, whether they came with the Mayflower or whether they came
yesterday, all have the same yearnings to breathe free.
I hope my colleagues will understand the implications of this
amendment. I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will
understand the implications for the Republican Party of this kind of an
amendment. Because what this is saying to millions and millions of
people who have come here is: I am sorry, you are leaving.
I hope we can appeal to the better angels of our nature and turn down
this amendment and move forward with a comprehensive solution to this
terrible problem that plagues our Nation.
I believe my time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes to respond to some of
the arguments of the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, what is amnesty? I'll tell you what
Merriam-Webster's dictionary says:

[T]he act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon
is granted to a large group of individuals.

What we are talking about is a large group of individuals illegally
in the country. And the main consequence of that, under present law, is
to leave the country. Surely, under this provision, we are pardoning
them from that main consequence. Surely, this is a pardon from what
present law states must happen to folks who have come into this country
illegally, who stay in this country illegally.
The Senator from Arizona made several points, all of which I
essentially rebutted in my comments before. There is a big distinction
in this bill between those who have been here over 5 years and those
under. There is on paper. And guess what. An illegal alien can satisfy
the requirements of the bill that they have been here over 5 years and
get all of the benefits of this amnesty program

[[Page S4669]]

by simply signing a piece of paper himself that it is so. It makes a
mockery of the distinction.
The other requirements--a penalty. Yes, a penalty, which is less
money than many immigrants pay to go through the legal process. Is that
a penalty?
Paying back taxes--well, not all of them. Paying some back taxes.
That is certainly less than folks who have gone through the legal
process have had to do.
Learning English--well, not exactly. Being enrolled in a program is
good enough, not proving any proficiency.
And working in a job solidly for a number of years. Well, not solidly
for a number of years; 60 percent of the time is good enough.
The devil is in the details. I invite Members to look at the
definition of amnesty. I invite Members to study the details of this
bill because the American people certainly will and will come to the
clear conclusion that is what it is and is a repeat of the mistake of
past experience.
I would now like to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, before I give my remarks, I would like
to extend a thank you to the Senator from Arizona and to the Senator
from Massachusetts. During the debate on this issue a couple of weeks
ago, it became pretty obvious that there were some Members in this body
who did not want to see the Senate function the way it always has, with
respect to legislation, and that is to give all Members of this body
the opportunity to debate an issue, to submit amendments, and to
ultimately have a vote on those amendments and a vote on the
legislation. Were it not for the efforts of Senator McCain and Senator
Kennedy, we would have been at a deadlock, once again, and those of us
who object to this underlying bill would not have had the opportunity
to see the Senate work its will. So I do extend a thank you to these
Senators for the very professional way in which they handled themselves
during the course of the debate a couple of weeks ago, as well as right
now.
I rise in strong support of Senator Vitter's amendment, and I am
proud to be a cosponsor of it. I think this amendment crystalizes the
whole debate we are having in the Senate on this bill. It all comes
down to the simple question of whether you oppose or you favor amnesty.
I think the way Senators vote on this amendment will tell you where
they stand on this issue, so I hope the American people will take
careful note of how every Senator in this body votes on this amendment.
I am in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The way I see
it, there are three areas that must be addressed in accomplishing
comprehensive reform. The first and foremost is border security. If we
do not have operational control of our borders and serious interior
worksite enforcement, then there is no point in trying to address the
other issues relative to comprehensive reform.
The second key component we must address is to have a viable
temporary guestworker program for those outside of the country who want
to come to this country and work in a job that needs to be filled that
cannot, or will not, be filled by an American worker.
The third component we must address is the reality of the 11 million,
12 million--whatever the number is--of illegal immigrants who are
currently in the United States.
I think we can address all three of these issues without providing a
new path to citizenship for those who are currently here illegally.
There have been a number of alternative approaches mentioned throughout
this debate. I had one for agricultural workers, for example, which
would have allowed those workers to remain working for a period of 2
years before returning to their home country and have them reenter the
United States on a valid and viable guest worker program. This would
allow employers to structure their workforce in a way that they can
send their illegal workers home and have them return in a manner that
does not result in a complete work stoppage on our Nation's farms.
My main opposition to amnesty is that it has been tried before and it
has been proven that it does not work.
As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, my main focus in
this debate has been on agricultural workers. I firmly believe that an
amnesty is not in the best interests of agriculture in the United
States. The agricultural amnesty in this bill is so similar to the
Special Agricultural Worker Program that was enacted as the mechanism
for the 1986 amnesty bill that it is really startling. We have heard
many Senators talk about all that illegal aliens have to do in order to
adjust their status. However, I don't think many people realize that
the requirements are not the same for illegal agricultural workers,
under the base bill. For illegal agricultural workers to take advantage
of the amnesty in this bill, they must have worked at least 150 hours
in agriculture over a 2-year period, ending in December of 2005.
Meeting that threshold requirement will allow the illegal worker to
obtain a blue card.
Once in possession of a blue card--which is a new process, a new
card--that currently illegal worker has a choice of two different paths
to a green card. In addition to paying back taxes, he can work 100
hours per year for 5 years or work 150 hours per year for 3 years and
get a green card. There is not even a requirement to learn English for
agricultural workers to take advantage of the amnesty provision in the
base bill.
I think the requirements for illegal workers to take advantage of the
agricultural amnesty are so low that I fear a repeat of what happened,
and failed, in 1986. We should not repeat the mistakes we made before.
I am not the only one who feels this way. Several months ago, as we
were ramping up toward bringing this bill to the floor, I had the
opportunity to speak to 135 brand new American citizens who came from
125 different countries. They were sworn in at the Federal building in
Atlanta, GA. After my comments to them and their swearing-in ceremony,
I had about two dozen of these 133 individuals come up to me, one at a
time, and say: Senator, whatever you do, please don't allow those folks
who came into this country illegally to get a pathway to citizenship
that is different from the path I had to follow.
In some instances, these individuals took 5 years; in some instances
8; in some instances 12. In one instance, 22 years that individual had
to work to become a citizen of the United States. For all 133 of those
individuals who stood up that morning and raised their right hand and
swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it was
the proudest day of their lives. You can understand why they do not
want somebody who came into this country illegally to get a leg up on
people who were in the position that they were in for so many years,
trying to earn citizenship.

The people I saw at that naturalization ceremony truly did earn their
citizenship, and it means something to them, as it should to everybody
who becomes an American citizen. It does not seem fair to me to call
the process those newly naturalized individuals followed earned
citizenship and also call the provision for illegal agricultural
workers in this bill earned citizenship. There is a fundamental
difference between the two that should be recognized in the rhetoric of
this debate.
Another problem I have with the agricultural amnesty provision is
that it does not remedy the problem with fraud that was prevalent in
the 1986 Special Agricultural Worker Program. Under the 1986 program,
illegal farm workers who did at least 90 days of farm work during a 12-
month period could earn a legal status. The illegal immigrants had to
present evidence that they did at least 90 days of farm work, such as
pay stubs or a letter from an employer or even fellow workers. Because
it was assumed that many unauthorized farm workers were employed by
labor contractors, who did not keep accurate records, after a farm
worker had presented evidence that he had done qualifying farm work,
the burden of proof shifted to the Government to disprove the claimed
work.
The Government was not prepared for the flood of SAW applicants and
had little expertise on typical harvesting seasons. Therefore, an
applicant who told a story such as: I

[[Page S4670]]

climbed a ladder to pick strawberries, had that application denied,
while those who said: I picked tomatoes for 92 days in an area with a
picking season of only 72 days was able to adjust.
Careful analysis of the sample of applications from the 1986 worker
program in California, where most applications were filed, suggests
that most applicants had not done the qualifying farm work, but over 90
percent were nonetheless approved.
The propensity for fraud is not remedied in this bill and compounds
bad policy with the ability for unscrupulous actors to take advantage
of it.
I think the most important lesson to learn from the 1986 program is
that providing illegal immigrants who work on the farms of this country
does not benefit the agricultural workforce for long. History shows
that the vast majority of illegal workers who gain a legal status leave
agriculture within 5 years. This means that under proposed agricultural
amnesty, those who questionably performed agricultural work in the past
will work at least 100 or 150 hours in agriculture per year for the
next 3 to 5 years. But after that, particularly in light of the changes
made to the H-2A program, I expect us to be in the same situation in
agriculture that we are today.
It is worth noting that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986 created a Commission on Agricultural Workers, an 11-member
bipartisan panel comprised of growers, union representatives,
academics, civil servants, and clergy, and tasked it with examining the
impact the amnesty for special agricultural workers had on the domestic
farm labor supply, working conditions, and wages.
Mr. President, I ask for an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. VITTER. I have no objection and will be happy to grant the
Senator an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 5
minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. What is the time situation, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 12 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. The other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 12 minutes--
the other side has 6 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Back 6 years after the Immigration Reform and Control
Act was passed, the Commission found that the same problems in the
agricultural industry persist; the living and working conditions of
farm workers had not improved; wages remained stagnant; increasing
numbers of new illegal aliens are arriving to compete for the same
small number of jobs, thus reducing the work hours available to each
worker and contributing to lower annual earnings; and virtually all
workers who hold seasonal agricultural jobs are unemployed at some
point during the year.

I think the experience of the SAW program should serve as a lesson to
the Senate as we grapple with how to handle our current illegal
population. I believe the amnesty in this bill is far too similar to
the SAW Program in 1986 and will likely have the same result.
We know from past experience that agricultural workers do not stay in
their agricultural jobs for long, especially when they gain a legal
status and have the option to work in less back-breaking occupations.
Therefore, the focus on agricultural immigration should be on the H-2A
program. This is the program that regardless of what the Senate does
with amnesty, will be relied upon by our agricultural employers across
the country in the near future.
Let me conclude by saying that while I do support a lot of the
provisions in the underlying bill, there is one basic concept in the
underlying bill that is baffling to me; that is, why do we have to
connect a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally to
meaningful immigration reform? There are a lot of these people--whether
it is 11 million or 20 million, whatever the number may be--who came
here for the right reason, that reason being to improve the quality of
life for themselves and their families. We need to show compassion for
those individuals.
Does that mean we ought to give them an automatic pass to citizenship
that they may, or may not, want? We have no idea how many of these
people will actually want to be citizens. Why do we grant that
privilege which we cherish so much and those 133 individuals in
Atlanta, GA, cherished so much on the day they were sworn in as
American citizens? Why don't we simply leave the law on citizenship
exactly the way it is today and let people who want to earn it earn it
in the way that current law provides?
Let us look out for these 11 million or 12 million or whatever the
number is. We have methods by which we can deal with those individuals
and at the same time accomplish real, meaningful border security, as
well as provide our employers in this country with a meaningful,
quality supply of workers that they know are here for the right reasons
and that they know are here legally.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from
Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you. I thank the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts for his continued leadership. I don't
believe there is anyone in the Senate who has worked harder or done
more or who understands the issue better than Senator Kennedy.
We are dealing with a very complicated, difficult issue. It is
complicated and difficult for many reasons. Partly it is complicated
and difficult because we have deferred this issue for years. We have
refused to take a responsible position on all the different aspects of
immigration reform.
I hear with interest from some colleagues that 11 million to 12
million illegal aliens don't deserve a pathway to legal status and
ultimately citizenship. They, however, do not come forward with
alternatives. Obviously, border security is the core, the beginning of
immigration reform. I am not aware of any Senator who has questioned or
contested that point.
In fact, the underlying bill that we are debating today is replete--
absolutely--in its focus on border security, enforcement of that
border, doubling the border agents, doubling the budget, doubling the
unmanned vehicles, doubling the technology, doing more in the fencing
and physical protection of those borders.
That is not the debate. The debate, of course, resides around the
difficult issues, the 11 or 12 million illegals now in this country.
This debate elicits great and deep emotions and passion--and it
should. We were sent here to deal with the great challenges of our
time, to resolve the issues, find solutions, not give speeches, not go
halfway--just if we had a better border, if we could enforce our border
in stronger or more effective ways, and the rest of it just sorts its
way out. It doesn't sort itself out. That is leadership. That is what
you saw from President Bush Monday night in his speech of 17 minutes;
he laid it out clearly, succinctly. The American people could
understand it.
It is a national security issue. It is an economic issue. It is a
societal issue. You can take pieces of each and pick and choose which
might make you more comfortable politically, but it doesn't work that
way. It is all wrapped into the same enigma. It is woven into the same
fabric. That is what we are dealing with.
On this issue of amnesty, I find it astounding that my colleagues who
are straight-faced would stand up and talk about amnesty. Let me tell
you what amnesty is. Some of you might recall 1978 when President Jimmy
Carter pardoned those who fled this country, who refused to serve their
country in Vietnam--unconditional forgiveness. That, my friend, is
amnesty. This is not amnesty. So let us get the terms right.
The American people deserve an honest debate and exchange. Come on,
let's stop the nonsense. If you have a better answer, step forward and
give me a better answer for it. But let us at least be honest with the
American people in what we are talking about. This is not amnesty. You
all know what we are talking about. This is dealing with a set of
criteria that people would have to follow in order to just get on a
pathway.
Let me ask this question: Are we better off just to continue to defer
this

[[Page S4671]]

and not allow the illegals in this country an opportunity to step out
of the shadows? Who wins? Is it really protecting the security of this
country? Is it really doing more in the way of enhancing our economy
and our society to keep pushing these people back into the shadows?
Where are we winning? How is this getting to the point, to the issue?
How is this dealing with the issue that we must deal with? It is not.
It is not.
I said this is a complicated, difficult issue. It is. There is not a
perfect solution, or any solution we can come up with which is
imperfect. Most solutions are imperfect. Most are imperfect. But it is
going to take some courage from this body.
I don't think the American public sees a great abundance of courage
in this town, in this Congress, in politicians today. Read the front
page of the Washington Post today and read any poll.
But in this case, the President and the Congress are showing some
courage to step forward in the middle of a difficult political year,
where my own party, the President's party, is divided on this issue.
But this is courage and leadership. It is leadership to take on the
tough issues. What we are trying to do today and tomorrow and next week
is find the common ground of responsible governance to deal with this
issue.
This is one of those issues which tests and defines a society. It
tests and defines a country. And the precious glue that has been
indispensable in holding this country together for over 200 years has
been common interests and mutual respect. I don't know of an issue that
is facing our country today that is more important, that is framed in
that precious glue concept more precisely than this issue.
I hope my colleagues will vote against the Vitter amendment. It is
irresponsible. It doesn't present an alternative. I think what we have
before us is an alternative.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for his
excellent presentation. He laid out as effectively as one could the
reasons against this amendment. Effectively, the Vitter amendment
undermines the whole concept of a comprehensive immigration bill. But
having said that, it is not a constructive or positive solution to the
challenges we are facing with the 11 million or 12 million undocumented
individuals who are here at the present time.
First of all, our bill says if you are going to be able to earn
citizenship, you have to pay a penalty. So you have to pay the penalty.
You have to be continuously employed. You have to meet a security
background check. You must learn English. You must learn U.S. History.
You must pay all back taxes, and then you get in the back of the line
of all of the applicants waiting for green cards. Effectively, it takes
11 years for them to be able to earn citizenship. That is the earned
legalization program.
For those who say this is 1986, they are either distorting the record
or haven't read it clearly. This is what we are talking about for those
11 million or 12 million people: They have to earn it--the end of the
line, pay the penalty, work hard.
We have seen some of them join the Armed Forces of our country. That
is the earned legalization.
What is Senator Vitter's answer? Do you know what is going to happen?
You are going to have the 11 million or 12 million individuals continue
to be exploited in the workplace. You are going to drive down the wages
and, therefore, undermine working conditions for Americans. They are
going to be exploited. They are going to be threatened in the
workplace: If you do not do this job that I am asking you to do, I am
going to call the immigration service and have you deported.
They are threatened. That is happening every single day all across
this country to these individuals.
Third, if you are a woman you are going to suffer exploitation, you
are going to suffer abuse, and you are going to suffer sexual
harassment. That is the record. Those are the things that are
happening, and at the end of the day you are going to have a two-tiered
society. That is something that we, as Americans, have avoided. We take
pride that we are a singular society and we struggle to create equality
for all the people of our society.
If you accept the Vitter amendment, you are going to have a two-
tiered society; that is, a permanent underclass. That is the United
States of America. That is going to be the result if we are going to
follow the recommendations. There is even the suggestion it was going
to be for deportation.
We have heard different approaches to these 12 million. Our friends
in the House of Representatives have effectively wanted to criminalize
every 1 of these 12 million. We are going to criminalize them and stain
them for the rest of their lives. We have rejected that.

We have, on the one hand, people prepared to play by the rules. By
and large, these are the people who are devoted to their families, who
want to work hard, who want to play by the rules. There are 70,000
permanent residents now serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan and around the world, willing to do so. Many of them have
died in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are prepared to do so. They want to
be part of the American dream, as our forebears from other
nationalities have been part of the American dream. They want to
participate. We are saying to them, that is the choice: a permanent
subclass, permanent underclass, permanent exploitation of 11 million or
12 million, or have them earn their way, go to the back of the line,
show they are going to be good citizens, learn English, pay their back
taxes, and demonstrate they are committed to the American dream.
That is the choice we have made. That is the choice which is clearly
in the interest of our country. That would be altered and changed and
dramatically undermined with the Vitter amendment. I hope it is not
accepted.
I withhold whatever time remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, quickly, while Senator Vitter is speaking
for a lot of people who believe we should not do this together, we
should have border security and come back and look at a different way
of doing this with 11 or 12 million people, that does not mean you are
hateful, that does not mean you don't understand there is a problem.
They have a problem with the citizenship path, and I understand that.
I agree with the President, Senator Martinez, Senator Hagel, Senator
Specter, Senator Kennedy, 70 percent of the American people--we have to
do both. We are not going to put everybody in jail. That is off the
table. It is not going to work. We are not going to deport 11 million
or 12 million people. What do we do? Of these 11 or 12 million people,
how many have children who are American citizens? How do you get them
out of the shadows effectively to get control of the problem?
If we want to control the borders, control employment. If we do not
control employment, we can build the biggest fence in the world, and it
will not work. People will keep coming here until we get a grip on
employment.
How do you control employment? Make sure you know who is being
employed, and punish employers who cheat. Give them a chance to
participate in the system that will work. The way to control employment
is get people out of the shadows, sign up for a system we can control.
If you make them felons, they are not going to come out of the
shadows. If you deport the parents and leave the children behind, they
are not coming out.
If you think it is silly not to beef up the border, you are right. If
you think it is wise to separate these issues and have a system where
no one will participate by punishing people for coming out of the
shadows, you are dead wrong. You can punish them in a fairminded way
after they come out of the shadows, with an incentive for them to come,
put them on probation. We are talking about a nonviolent offense.
We need the workers. We have 4.7 percent unemployment. We have 11
million people here working. They are not putting people out of work;
they are adding value to our country. Some

[[Page S4672]]

will make it to citizenship, some won't. Those who make it will have
learned to speak English and will always have a job for 45 days. They
will have a hard road but will have earned it if they get to the end.
And some will not make it.
To deny they exist and to have a solution that will not get control
of employment is just as irresponsible as not doing something about the
border. That is why the President has chosen to get involved with a
comprehensive solution that does two things at once--controls the
employment and does something about the 11 million in a fairminded
way--and also controls the border. If we separate these issues, we will
fail again as a country.
I look forward to passing a bill that does both--deals with the
employment problems, the border problems, and treats people fairly,
punishes them fairly, and makes them pay their debt to society fairly.
But I believe deep in my heart that some of the 11 million people will
make it and some won't. They can add value to my country. And my friend
from Florida is a value to my country, and he was not born here.
Mr. SPECTER. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise in agreement and opposition to
the Vitter amendment.
I must say I am delighted that the President on Monday sort of laid
out the game plan. He laid out the vision. The vision is of a strong
border, one that secures admittance into the country and does not
permit illegal entry but understands we have a dynamic country, that we
have a growing economy, that we have employment needs which today are
being met by what is largely, in terms of this force, illegally here.
The fact is, we have tried to craft a compromise, which is what
Senator Hagel and I added to what was excellent work by Senator Specter
in his work, and Senators McCain and Kennedy, who earlier than that
came up with a concept to create a two- or three-tier system for those
already here.
For those 10 million people who are in our country illegally working,
those people need to be treated differently. We set up a three-tier
system. Five years and more, and you are more established, you have
been here a long time. The President talked about this on Monday night.
He spoke of this very concept. Those people would have one path to
permanency and to earn legalization very much along the lines of what
Senator Kennedy described--step after step after step.
Those who have been here less than 5 years but more than 2 years have
to reenter the country legally. They have to go to an entry point and
come back in legally. We will then know who they are. As a matter of
fact, when those people do that, they then go back in and have the same
requirements of those who have been here more than 10 years before they
get a green card or before they become citizens. Then there are those
more recent arrivals, and they do not get a benefit from the bill.
Those are people who presumably have only come in the last couple of
years to take advantage of what is currently perceived to be an
opportunity.

As to all of those people, who are they and what are they doing? In
my State of Florida, they are working in agriculture, they are working
in construction, and they are working in a number of other enterprises.
They are working in the tourism industry. They are building homes. If
you are a home builder in Florida, you depend on this labor force and
these workers to be there. You depend on them for you to make a good
living, for your company to prosper, for your economy to continue to
grow. In Florida, we virtually have no unemployment. In fact, we have
labor shortages in some sectors of our economy. These demands are being
met by this illegal system.
What we seek to do in this bill is to create a legal system, a system
that can be compatible with our ideals and concepts of a nation of laws
and also a nation that has for so many years been a nation that has
welcomed immigrants. I am proud to be among them.
I understand the opportunity the American dream can provide to us
all. I am very mindful of the openness and the love I felt in this
country by the welcoming of people here who allowed me to make a way
myself. This is what we are seeking for these people. After a long and
projected trajectory, they have a path to citizenship. They, too, will
have a stake in this country. They will have a stake in the outcome. We
are not relegating them to a second-class citizenship; we are welcoming
them as part of the whole.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 5 minutes 45
seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. That is all the time that remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes 45
seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment by the Senator
from Louisiana because it makes enormous changes in the committee bill
by eliminating the citizenship track.
I understand the point of the Senator from Louisiana. He does not
want to see the 11 million undocumented immigrants on the citizenship
track. But I believe we should not have a fugitive class in America,
that it is necessary, in order to bring these immigrants out of the so-
called shadows--they are out of the shadows for many purposes, and they
are identifiable, working constructively in the American economy--to
have them come forward, we are going to have to provide incentives for
them to do so.
We have had a great deal of debate on whether there is amnesty in the
committee bill. My own view is that we ought to tone down the rhetoric
on that subject, not accuse one side of amnesty, trying to give away
something that ought not to be given away, and in return not charging
that amnesty is an evil argument.
We ought to deal with what the facts are. The issue is whether it is
in our national interest, considering all the factors, to grant
citizenship to these 11 million undocumented immigrants when they go to
the end of the line if they perform certain tasks, if they meet certain
criteria. The criteria are substantial and onerous: the payment of a
fine, the payment of back taxes, the criminal background checks,
learning English, the learning of American history, working a
substantial period of time, and then 6 more years at the end of the
line.
In a very realistic way, there is not really a lot of choice as to
what we are going to do. It is totally impractical and unrealistic to
think about deporting 11 million people. The question is, What do we do
with them? How do we handle them?
It has been said in the Senate repeatedly but not too often that we
are a nation of immigrants. Many of the Senators who speak start off by
referencing their own backgrounds, as I have.
My father came to this country in 1911 at the age of 18. He came from
czarist Russia. The czar wanted to send him to Siberia. As I have said
in the past, he chose Kansas. It was, perhaps, a close call, I say in a
facetious way. My mother came at the age of 6 with her family, settled
in St. Joe, MO, and my parents have contributed to the American way of
life. My father served in World War I and was wounded in action. In my
Senate office, I proudly have their wedding picture. He was in uniform,
and she was a beautiful bride of 19. They raised four children who
contributed to our country and many grandchildren and many great-
grandchildren and many great-great-grandchildren, so far.
This situation is a test of our humanity as a nation and the values
in which we believe in the United States. We do not condone the
breaking of the law, the breaking of the rule of law, but we are
dealing with a very difficult situation in the best way we can.
With respect to the Senator from Louisiana, if his amendment were
agreed to, we would not have comprehensive immigration reform. I
believe comprehensive immigration reform is what is needed.
I yield the floor and reserve the final minute for perhaps some
rebuttal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. In closing the debate on this amendment, I thank all of
the Members who have participated on both sides. It is a very important
debate.
I wish to make three closing points.
First of all, I find it a little bit amusing and quite telling, the
extreme reaction that erupted from some of the

[[Page S4673]]

Senators at my suggestion that this is amnesty. It sort of reminds me
of the famous line ``Thou doth protest too much.''
I offered a textbook definition of amnesty, and I heard no rebuttal
to the fact that these provisions match that definition. Here is an
even better definition from ``Black's Law Dictionary,'' which
specifically cites as an example:

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided
amnesty for undocumented aliens already present in the
country.

What is the comparison between that 1986 act and this bill? The
comparison is laid out, and it is very striking. Penalties were there
in both cases. Learning English? Guess what. That was required in 1986.
Working in a job for certain periods of time? Guess what. That was in
1986 as well. The parallels, the comparison is striking.
Second, again, it is a straw man to suggest there is absolutely no
way to deal with the 12 million illegal aliens presently in the country
but the provisions of this bill. There are alternatives. I laid out an
alternative. Senator Chambliss laid out an alternative offering these
folks the ability to work as temporary workers but not an automatic
guaranteed path to citizenship.
This is not about whether we deal with the problem; this is about how
we deal with the problem. And amnesty, in my opinion, is exactly the
wrong way to deal with the problem. Recent history has proven that.
Third, and finally, I do not offer this amendment ignoring the values
behind American citizenship, ignoring the enormous devotion to those
values that so many Americans have, perhaps most of all those who have
recently become American citizens. I offer this amendment because of
those values and my commitment to honor them because I truly believe
the provisions of this bill, which amount to amnesty, will erode the
concept of citizenship and will erode those very values.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Pennsylvania has 1 minute.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the essence of the argument from the
Senator from Louisiana is when he says ``automatic guaranteed path to
citizenship.'' Well, it simply is not so. There is nothing automatic
when you have to fulfill the requirements of paying a fine and learning
English and paying back taxes and working for a protracted period of
time. There is nothing guaranteed about it. It is earned. And that is
the hallmark of American values: to earn it.
That concludes my argument, Mr. President.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment there is not a sufficient second.
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as soon as Senator Kennedy returns to the
floor, I will make it official on asking unanimous consent locking in
the two votes at 2:30.
I am informed there is agreement by authorized representatives of the
leader of the Democrats. And we are now awaiting the arrival of Senator
Obama, who is reportedly due here momentarily.
So until he arrives, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to
speak for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on the Vitter amendment, I thank Senator
Vitter for his amendment. Yesterday, Senator Dorgan offered an
amendment to remove the guest worker program in its entirety, and I
supported that because I believed it was flawed. Eventually, last
night, we came back with an amendment that pretty much fixed it, that
whole guest worker program, which I thought was good.
I think Senator Vitter's amendment points out and allows us to focus
on the fact that this amnesty provision in the bill or regularization
provision in the bill--whatever the fair way to describe it is--also
has serious flaws. By supporting this amendment, it would be my
intention to say let's make it better because I do believe we are not
going to reject the people who are here and try to eject all of those
people who have come illegally. We need to treat them in a decent and
fair and caring way.
But also the rule of law is important. I think we ought not to
develop a procedure that essentially provides every benefit to someone
who came illegally that we would provide to those who come legally. So
I will be supporting the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when we complete debate on Senator
Obama's amendment, we will then have two votes at 2:30. And then, after
the votes, it is our desire, subject to Senator Inhofe's agreement, to
come and debate his amendment. That may take a substantial period of
time. I am advised by Senator Kennedy they would like 2 hours equally
divided. So that will take us fairly far into the afternoon. We will
stay in session even though Director Negroponte will be having a
session upstairs. This bill needs to be moved, so we will stay in
session on the Inhofe amendment during that period of time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Idaho be
given 2 minutes to debate the Vitter amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I do have to stand in opposition to the
Vitter amendment and hope my colleagues will oppose it. We are all
finding out that what we are attempting to do is phenomenally
complicated, with all the different kinds of categories of work status
and reality that we as the Senate and the American people are awakening
to.
There is one reality. We have a lot of undocumented foreign nationals
in our country. By definition, they are illegal. Some--and many--have
been here 5 and 6 years or more or less. They are law abiding. They are
hard working. They have not violated the laws, other than they walked
across the border. And they did violate a law when they did that.

Earned adjustment is an attempt to bring some reality to this by
saying, if you have been here and you worked a while, then you can stay
and work: You will pay a fine, you will have a background check, but we
will provide you with a legal status to stay and to work--not
citizenship. If you want citizenship, you go to the back of the line
and you qualify.
But we are talking about a legal work status. Some call that amnesty.
I call it earned adjustment because we are beginning to find out who is
here, why they are here. There is a background check. Are they legal in
the sense, did they violate laws, other than walking across the border?
And I do not mean to take that lightly.
The Vitter amendment wipes out all of that. It wipes out the work of
the committee. It wipes out how you deal with 10 million undocumented
people in our country in a systematic, legal, and responsible fashion.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Vitter amendment. There may be a
better idea than earned adjustment. But after having worked on this
issue for 5 years and attempting to work with all of the interest
groups to bring about some equity, stability of workforce--assuring
that those who are out in the field now working or in our processing
plants working can stay and work and keep our economy moving--I ask my
colleagues to oppose the Vitter amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 we
proceed to the Sessions amendment for a

[[Page S4674]]

15-minute vote, and thereafter we proceed to the Vitter amendment for a
10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have Senator Obama on the floor ready
to offer his amendment. There is some issue as to whether it has been
worked through on all of the aspects of being modified. But I think we
are very close. So what I would suggest we do is proceed to consider
the Obama amendment, subject to some minor change which may be made on
modification. And I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally
divided between now and 2:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The time between now and 2:30
will be equally divided.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 3971, as Modified

Mr. President, while the staff is consulting--we thought that the
modifications had been agreed to--what I would like to do is tell you
the essence of the amendment that I plan to offer. As soon as we get
the go-ahead, we will offer it for immediate consideration.
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss amendment No. 3971, which
pertains to the guest worker provisions in the bill. I have some
significant concerns with respect to the guest worker provisions. I am
concerned that the guest worker provisions are premised on the idea
that American workers are not available to fill the jobs that are
currently being filled by undocumented workers or foreign guest
workers. I am not certain that is the case.
Recently, I was on vacation in Arizona. I was staying at a hotel, and
I noticed that all the individuals who were serving drinks and lunch at
the swimming pool appeared to be from the West Indies. So I asked one
of them: Where are you from? He said: I am from Jamaica. I asked: Are
all the guys here from Jamaica? He said: Yes. I asked: How do you come
here? He said: Well, I work for a company that essentially brings us in
for 9 months during the high season. Then during the low season of
vacation we will go back. And they take care of all their paperwork and
handle all their immigration issues.
And he said: Did you notice that all the women who are cleaning the
rooms are from China? I said: You know, I happened to notice that.
It turned out they have the same arrangement.
What it indicated was essentially you have a situation in which
international temp agencies are being set up where workers will come in
for 9 months, doing jobs that I think many Americans would be willing
to do if they were available.
Now, having said that, there are some industries in which guest
workers and agricultural workers are absolutely necessary. So the
question is: How do we create this program but make sure it is tight
enough that it does not disadvantage workers? To do that we are going
to have to make the prevailing wage requirements of this bill real for
all workers and all jobs.
We have to ensure that communities where American unemployment rates
are high will not experience unnecessary competition from guest
workers. So to that end, I will be offering an amendment, as modified,
along with Senators Feinstein and Bingaman, to strengthen the
prevailing wage language and to freeze the guest worker program in
communities with unemployment rates for low-skilled workers of 9
percent or greater.
This amendment would establish a true prevailing wage for all
occupations to ensure that guest workers are paid a wage that does not
lower American wages. The bill on the floor requires that employers
advertise jobs to American workers at a prevailing wage before offering
that job to a guest worker. And it requires that employers pay guest
workers a prevailing wage. But the bill, currently, without the
amendment, does not clarify how to calculate the prevailing wage for
workers not covered by a collective bargaining agreement or the Service
Contract Act of 1965, which governs contracts entered into by the
Federal Government. That leaves most jobs and most workers unprotected.
The bill currently before us simply states that an employer has to
provide working conditions and benefits such as those provided to
workers ``similarly'' employed. So as a consequence, a bad employer
could easily game the system by offering an artificially low wage to
American workers and just count on those workers not taking the job.
The employer could then offer that job at below-average wages to guest
workers, knowing they would take it to get here legally.
That is not good for American workers, and it is not good for guest
workers.
My amendment fixes that language. It directs the employer to use
Department of Labor data to calculate a prevailing wage in those cases
in which neither a collective bargaining agreement nor the Service
Contract Act applies. That would mean an employer would have to make an
offer at an average wage across comparable employers instead of just an
average wage that she or he is willing to pay. The amendment also would
establish stronger prohibitions on the guest worker program in high
unemployment areas. The bill currently bars use of the program if the
unemployment rate for low-skilled workers in a metropolitan area
averages more than 11 percent. Our amendment would lower that
unemployment rate to 9 percent of workers unemployed with a high school
diploma or less. There is no reason any community with large pockets of
unemployed Americans needs guest workers.
This is a good, commonsense amendment which is endorsed by SEIU, the
Laborers Union, the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades
Department, and the National Council of La Raza. I urge my colleagues
to support it.
I will actually call up the amendment to be read as soon as it comes
back. I think there are some discussions taking place right now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are still working on a modification. I
am advised that it is a minor modification, but until we get it, 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Illinois for
bringing this to the attention of the Senate. I rise in strong support
of the amendment. One of the dynamics of a comprehensive approach is
legality and fairness. What we want to make sure is that when jobs are
advertised for Americans first, Americans should be able to take
advantage of the opportunity. But if they are going to go, by and
large, to Hispanic individuals who come here, they ought to be treated
at fair wages. There are protections that are included in the bill at
the present time. The amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois
addresses that issue and strengthens it. I hope we will find a way to
accept it.
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. OBAMA. 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. OBAMA. Mr. President, we have been having some discussion. My
understanding is that the concerns that have been raised have to do
with the underlying bill and not my amendment. As a consequence, I ask
unanimous consent to send to the desk amendment No. 3971, as modified,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
I also ask unanimous consent to add Senators Lieberman and Landrieu
as cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting the pending
amendments aside?
Without objection, the pending amendments are set aside. Does the
Senator have a modified version?
Mr. OBAMA. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S4675]]

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Obama], for himself, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lieberman, and Ms. Landrieu,
proposes an amendment numbered 3971, as modified.

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

(Purpose: To amend the temporary worker program)

Beginning on page 266, strike line 13 and all that follows
through 267, line 3, and insert the following:
``(C) Prevailing wage level.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(ii), the prevailing wage level shall be determined in
accordance as follows:
``(i) If the job opportunity is covered by a collective
bargaining agreement between a union and the employer, the
prevailing wage shall be the wage rate set forth in the
collective bargaining agreement.
``(ii) If the job opportunity is not covered by such an
agreement and it is in an occupation that is covered by a
wage determination under a provision of subchapter IV of
chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, or the Service
Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), the prevailing
wage level shall be the appropriate statutory wage.
``(iii)(I) If the job opportunity is not covered by such an
agreement and it is in an occupation that is not covered by a
wage determination under a provision of subchapter IV of
chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, or the Service
Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), the prevailing
wage level shall be based on published wage data for the
occupation from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, including the
Occupational Employment Statistics survey, Current Employment
Statistics data, National Compensation Survey, and
Occupational Employment Projections program. If the Bureau of
Labor Statistics does not have wage data applicable to such
occupation, the employer may base the prevailing wage level
on another wage survey approved by the Secretary of Labor.
``(II) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations
applicable to approval of such other wage surveys that
require, among other things, that the Bureau of Labor
Statistics determine such surveys are statistically viable.

On page 273, line 7, strike ``unskilled and low-skilled
workers'' and insert ``workers who have not completed any
education beyond a high school diploma''.
On page 273, line 9, strike ``11.0'' and insert ``9.0'', and on line
4, after ``immigrant'', add ``is not agriculture based and''.

Mr. OBAMA. I already explained the amendment, Mr. President. My
suggestion would be that if the manager of the bill has no objection,
we go ahead. I want to make sure I am going in the appropriate order,
given the manager's fine job of keeping this process moving.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have no objection to proceeding to
consider the amendment, as modified. There are still Senators on this
side of the aisle reviewing it. We are not yet prepared to take a
position. I think it is entirely appropriate to consider the
discussion. I believe, as I said to Senator Obama privately, that we
will work it out.
I yield to the Senator from Illinois for further debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. As I indicated, this amendment essentially says that the
prevailing wage provisions in the underlying bill should be tightened
to ensure that they apply to all workers and not just some workers. The
way the underlying bill is currently structured, essentially those
workers who fall outside of Davis-Bacon projects or collective
bargaining agreements or other provisions are not going to be covered.
That could be 25 million workers or so which could be subject to
competition from guest workers, even though they are prepared to take
the jobs that the employers are offering, if they were offered at a
prevailing wage. My hope would be that we can work out whatever
disagreements there are on the other side. This is a mechanism to
ensure that the guest worker program is not used to undercut American
workers and to put downward pressure on the wages of American workers.
Everybody in this Chamber has agreed that if we are going to have a
guest worker program, it should only be made available where there is a
genuine need that has been shown by the employers that American workers
are not available for those jobs. Without this amendment, that will not
be the case, and we will have a situation in which we have guest
workers who are taking jobs that Americans are prepared to take, if, in
fact, prevailing wages were provided for. I don't know anybody here--
and I have been working closely with those who are interested in
passing a bill--who wants to see a situation in which we are creating a
mechanism to undermine the position of American workers.
I ask that this amendment be considered, and I will hold off on
asking for the yeas and nays until we have had a chance to discuss it
further.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:30
having arrived, the vote is to occur in relation to the Sessions
amendment No. 3979.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Vitter
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the yeas and nays have been ordered on
the Vitter amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 16, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

YEAS--83

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--16

Akaka
Bingaman
Cantwell
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Menendez
Murray
Obama
Reed
Sarbanes

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 3979) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Amendment No. 3971, as Modified

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before moving on to the next vote, we
have the pending amendment by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama,
which we are prepared to accept. I ask for a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the yeas and nays have been ordered on the
Vitter amendment, and it is scheduled for a vote at the conclusion of
this vote. The Senator from Pennsylvania has asked unanimous consent
that prior to that vote the Obama amendment be considered by a voice
vote. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to Obama amendment No. 3971, as modified.
The amendment (No. 3971), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4018

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, a vote will now

[[Page S4676]]

occur in relation to the Vitter amendment.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we call up the
Stevens, Leahy, Murkowski, Jeffords, Coleman, Stabenow, Collins, and
Levin amendment No. 4018 to extend the implementation deadline for the
Western Hemisphere initiative by 18 months. I ask unanimous consent
that it be allowed to be called up. It will simply be a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Stevens, for
himself, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Jeffords,
Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Levin, proposes an
amendment numbered 4018.

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

(Purpose: To extend the deadline given to the Secretary of Homeland
Security for the implementation of a new travel document plan for
border crossings to June 1, 2009)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. TRAVEL DOCUMENT PLAN.

Section 7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note) is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``June 1, 2009''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4018.
Mr. DOMENICI. What is the amendment?
Mr. LEAHY. The amendment simply extends for 18 months the Western
Hemisphere travel initiative on the northern border.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I object to proceeding with the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the amendment has been called up. There is
to be a voice vote by consent. A voice vote is still allowed to go
forward. The Senator can vote against it, of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the amendment has been
considered. Under the previous order, a vote is now to occur in
relation to the Vitter amendment on which the yeas and nays have been
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: What happens to the
amendment that was brought up by unanimous consent, amendment--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is the pending amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. So does that mean that amendment
becomes the pending amendment following the disposition of the Vitter
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Isn't it true that
we have the unanimous consent agreement to take up the Inhofe amendment
after we have the vote on the Vitter amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. The Inhofe amendment has not been agreed
to be considered under any previous order.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, then I ask unanimous consent that the
Inhofe amendment be taken up following the amendment referenced by the
Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, as I understand, at the
time they are going to have the consideration of the Inhofe amendment,
there may be a side-by-side amendment, and I hope that perhaps we would
move to Inhofe. I would also hope that the Senator might withhold his
unanimous consent request, at least until we have the full package, so
that the Senate understands exactly the way we are going to proceed.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is agreeable.

Vote on Amendment No. 3963

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The question is on agreeing to
the Vitter amendment No. 3963. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 66, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

YEAS--33

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter

NAYS--66

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

NOT VOTING--1

Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 3963) was rejected.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to explain my reasons for my
vote on the Vitter amendment No. 3963.
It is estimated that there are currently around 12 million illegal
immigrants in this country. And I do not support the proposition that
everyone of those 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the United
States should be given the right to a green card and eventual
citizenship.
However, there are certain cases where illegal immigrants have been
here for a very long time--in some cases, for decades. Some of these
people have families here and deep ties to their local communities.
The Vitter amendment would have made no exception for such cases at
all. And I do think that we need some flexibility for humanitarian
reasons.
For this reason, I voted against the Vitter amendment. But I would
like to emphasize that I am not in favor of a broad, blanket amnesty
for illegal immigrants.

Amendment No. 4018

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we are ready to go on the
amendment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished
manager if I, along with Senator Cornyn, could be added as cosponsors
to Senator Leahy's amendment since it applies to both the northern and
southern borders?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection to that. It fairly
states it. This would apply to both borders and, of course, simply
extends the time after which we have to have the kind of ID that would
be called for in previous legislation. It would extend to both the
northern and southern border. I will be glad to have both Senators from
Texas as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative. This initiative is based on the 9/11
Commission's recommendations and was authorized in ``The Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.'' It requires the
Department of Homeland Security--DHS--to implement a new documentation
program by January 1, 2008. Once this program is in place, all U.S.
citizens crossing the Canadian or Mexican border into our country must
have a passport or other accepted documentation, such as a passcard, in
order to verify their citizenship.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department are now
in the process of developing the rules needed to implement this
initiative. The air and sea portion of this initiative could be
implemented as early as next January.
The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department are

[[Page S4677]]

evaluating two options for this initiative. The first would require a
person entering the United States to present a passport. However,
passports are expensive and require weeks to acquire. The second option
is a passcard, which would be slightly cheaper, but would still require
a background check and could only be used for travel between our
country, Canada, and Mexico.
We must tighten our border security, but many have raised serious
concerns about both of these options. It is unlikely the State
Department will be able to process the flood of requests for passports
and passcards that will come from this initiative by the deadline. The
travel and business activities of millions of people will be adversely
affected.
Take a military family reassigned from the lower 48 to Eielson Air
Force Base, Alaska. They must drive from the lower 48 through Canada
with all of their belongings, and they may not have the opportunity or
funds to acquire the passports this initiative will require.
Our State is the only State in the Nation which cannot be accessed by
land without passing through a foreign country. Alaskans are very
concerned about the impact this initiative will have on travel to and
from our State.
Every year, a large number of people travel to Alaska from the lower
48 on the Alaska-Canada highway, Also known as the Al-Can. Each summer
we routinely see RVs on the road with license plates from New York,
Pennsylvania, Florida, California, and elsewhere. These visitors will
now need a passcard or a passport to drive to our State. I worry about
how this will affect our tourism industry and the challenges it will
create for Americans who want to visit one of the most beautiful places
in our country.
These are just some of the issues which must be considered before
implementing this plan. I believe the department of homeland security
and the State department are operating under an unrealistic timeframe.
We must ensure they have enough time to properly test and implement
this system, which includes biometrics and new border security
equipment.
Those of us in Alaska share a special relationship with our friends
in Canada. It would be unfortunate if a hastily imposed initiative
negatively affected movement in and out of Canada, or negatively
affected our relationship with our neighbors.
The deadline Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security is
fast approaching. Little progress has been made. We must pass this
amendment to give them more time.
There is just too much at stake to rush this, and I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when the Congress passed the intelligence
reform bill in 2004, it included measures that were intended to help
secure our borders. These provisions, called the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative, require that any person, including a U.S. citizen,
present a passport or its equivalent, when they enter the United States
from neighboring countries, including Canada or Mexico.
We have long enjoyed less-formal immigration policies with our
neighbors, and especially with Canada. These policies encourage tourism
and trade and promote goodwill between our nations.
The impact of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative on Northern
Border states could be extremely harmful. Last year, Vermont exported
$1.516 billion worth of products to Canada. And in 2003, more than 2
million Canadians visited Vermont, spending $188 million while here.
Other northern border States enjoy similar trade and tourism benefits
with Canada and face what could be significant downturns in their
economies if this law is not implemented smoothly.
States like Alaska and Minnesota have unique challenges under the law
because in Alaska all or in Minnesota some residents have to cross into
Canada before entering the continental U.S. by land. In addition,
several southern States could experience negative impacts. Florida and
Nevada welcome significant numbers of Canadian tourists. Other States
have strong economic ties to Canada and depend on the efficient
movement of products across international borders.
We all know that the economic health of many small towns along the
border depends upon their access to neighboring Canadian towns. In some
cases, these towns share emergency services, grocery stores and other
basic services. Residents sometimes cross the border on foot several
times a day. This is true in Vermont, and I am sure that it is true for
communities in many border States.
The State Department is developing a lower cost passport
alternative--called the PASS Card--but that program has serious
problems and potential for delay. The two Government agencies
responsible for these PASS Cards are still arguing over what technology
to embed in the card.
This issue alone indicates that DHS cannot meet the January 1, 2008
deadline when all U.S. citizens will need this card, or the more
expensive traditional passport, to cross the northern border at land
ports of entry.
I have worked in recent months with Senators Stevens, Jeffords,
Coleman, Stabenow, Murkowski, Cornyn and Levin to extend the
implementation date for this program to June 2009. That would give the
U.S. and Canada an extra 18 months to prepare for a smooth transition.
The bipartisan amendment we offer today should be non controversial and
I hope all Senators will support it.
No one is suggesting that we should repeal the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative altogether, but in order to protect our economy and
to preserve community ties, we should intervene now to ensure that the
Government can implement this law in a rational manner. An extension is
the sensible way to proceed. We need to be smart about border security,
not just to sound ``tough'' about it.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are ready to have a voice vote on the
pending Leahy-Stevens amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4018) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4000

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will now ask for consideration of the
Santorum amendment, amendment No. 4000, which has been cleared on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for himself,
Mr. Frist, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered
4000.

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

(Purpose: To allow additional countries to participate in the visa
waiver program under section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
if they meet certain criteria)

On page 306, strike line 13 and insert the following:

SEC. 413. VISA WAIVER PROGRAM EXPANSION.

Section 217(c) (8 U.S.C. 1187(c)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(8) Probationary admission.--
``(A) Definition of material support.--In this paragraph,
the term `material support' means the current provision of
the equivalent of, but not less than, a battalion (which
consists of 300 to 1,000 military personnel) to Operation
Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to provide
training, logistical or tactical support, or a military
presence.
``(B) Designation as a program country.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this section, a country may be
designated as a program country, on a probationary basis,
under this section if--
``(i) the country is a member of the European Union;
``(ii) the country is providing material support to the
United States or the multilateral forces in Afghanistan or
Iraq, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State; and
``(iii) the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, determines that participation of
the country in the visa waiver program under this section
does not compromise the law enforcement interests of the
United States.
``(C) Refusal rates; overstay rates.--The determination
under subparagraph (B)(iii) shall only take into account any
refusal rates or overstay rates after the expiration of the
first full year of the country's admission into the European
Union.

[[Page S4678]]

``(D) Full compliance.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of a country's designation under subparagraph (B), the
country--
``(i) shall be in full compliance with all applicable
requirements for program country status under this section;
or
``(ii) shall have its program country designation
terminated.
``(E) Extensions.--The Secretary of State may extend, for a
period not to exceed 2 years, the probationary designation
granted under subparagraph (B) if the country--
``(i) is making significant progress towards coming into
full compliance with all applicable requirements for program
country status under this section;
``(ii) is likely to achieve full compliance before the end
of such 2-year period; and
``(iii) continues to be an ally of the United States
against terrorist states, organizations, and individuals, as
determined by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with
the Secretary of State.''.

SEC. 414. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I congratulate my cosponsor, Senator
Mikulski, for the excellent work we did as a team on this amendment. It
took a long time to work this through the process, but we are very
pleased today this amendment will be accepted.
Mr. President, when a country is a staunch defense ally and partner
in the war on terror, they should have the opportunity to participate
in the Visa Waiver Program on a probationary basis while they work to
come into full compliance. I previously introduced and called up a
similar amendment, No. 3214, cosponsored by Senator Mikulski. After
consultation with the Judiciary Committee and the Department of State,
this modified version seeks to address some of the concerns that have
been raised.
I believe it is time that we allow average citizens from our allies
in the war on terror to come to the U.S. for weddings, birthdays and
funerals without the arbitrary determination of an embassy bureaucrat.
This amendment provides an opportunity--just an opportunity--for our
allies to allow their citizens to visit here for average events that we
all take for granted. It does not provide an open-ended opportunity,
just a 2-year window.
Any country that meets the probationary criteria then must come into
full compliance within 2 years--if not, they are terminated from the
program. This amendment also addressed a particular concern related to
certain countries with a Cold War history where even in the post-Cold
War era is held accountable for decades-old problems. This provision
ensures that overstay and refusal rates are based on current issues
after the country's admission into the European Union, and not its past
history.
Finally, the amendment provides a one-time option to the Secretary of
State to extend a country's probationary status under certain specific
criteria. After researching countries that could meet the criteria of
the amendment, my staff indicates that the only country currently
meeting the eligibility requirements is Poland.
Poland has been a strong ally to the United States at a critical time
in history. Poland was a staunch ally to the U.S. in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Poland has committed up to 2,300 soldiers to help with ongoing
peace efforts in Iraq, and currently assumes command of the Multi-
National Division--MND--Central South in Iraq. Poland demonstrated its
commitment to global security by becoming a member of NATO. Poland also
just recently became a member of the EU. And in 1991, Poland
unilaterally repealed the visa requirement for U.S. citizens traveling
to Poland for less than 90 days. Today, more than 100,000 Polish
citizens travel to the United States annually.
On February 10, 2005, I introduced S. 348 designating Poland as a
visa waiver country, with Senator Mikulski. This bill designates Poland
as a visa waiver country. Under this amendment, Polish citizens
visiting the U.S. within a 90-day period would not need to apply for a
visa. Representative Nancy Johnson introduced identical legislation
March 8, 2005 in the House, H.R. 635. Cosponsors of the bill are
Representatives Crowley, Jackson-Lee, Hart, LaHood, Shimkus, Lipinski
and Weiner.
I wrote a letter on February 9, 2005 to Secretary of State Rice
urging the State Department's support for this legislation. Following
up on that letter, I had conversations with Secretary Rice in the
Spring of 2005. Then in February 2006, I again wrote to Deputy
Secretary Zoellick urging his support for this legislation and offering
to address any concerns the State Department may have. To date, and
despite my staffs continued outreach, they have failed to take us up on
the offer.

So instead of working for a compromise, we continue not to move
forward on a bill to support the allies that have supported us. On
August 31, 2005 Poland celebrated the 25th anniversary of the 1980
shipyard strikes in Gdansk and the creation of the Solidarity Trade
Union. I was an original cosponsor of the Senate-passed resolution. The
Senate passed a resolution commemorating this anniversary. I had the
incredible privilege of meeting with Lech Walesa in October 2004 upon
introduction of my bill designating Poland as a member country of the
Visa Waiver Program. He is ``the symbol of the solidarity movement.''
Since the demise of communism, Poland has become a stable, democratic
nation. Poland has adopted economic policies that promote free markets
and economic growth.
When President Bush and then-Polish President Kwasniewski met in
February 2005, they affirmed the goal of Poland entering the Visa
Waiver Program--VMP, and agreed to a ``roadmap'' of mutual steps to
advance this goal in conformity with U.S. legislative criteria. Through
pressure from Congress and advocacy groups this issue has been advanced
further than ever before, making this ``road map'' possible. Although
the State Department has assured me it is working hard to implement a
``clean slate'' so immigration violations before 1989 will not render
them ineligible for a U.S. visa, we know that a key element will be the
2006 review of visa overstay rates based on new 2005 data from Poland's
first year in the EU. Another part of the agreement includes the U.S.
working with Poland to meet the visa waiver requirements, particularly
with regard to refusal and overstay rates, and exploring the provision
of technical assistance to bring Poland's passports in compliance. I
hope the cooperation that has begun will continue in earnest to ensure
that Poland comes into full compliance in the 2-year window under this
provision.
The current roadmap is a step in the right direction, but it
continues to move at a very slow pace. We can and should do more for
those that have stepped up to the plate and been incredible allies in
the war on terror. Today, as we consider who should be allowed to
immigrate to our country and how, we are focused on how to ensure
security and the rule flaw for those that have come into our country
illegally. For a moment I propose to turn the discussion to how to help
those who have stood with us--indeed those who have fought and died
with us--a preferred legal way to obtain a visa to come to this
country.
I am here to stand with the Polish people in asking each of you to
support bringing Poland into the Visa Waiver Program. Why is it that
countries such as Brunei, Liechtenstein and San Marino are in the Visa
Waiver Program, but not Poland or other allies in the war on terror?
Polish troops have fought alongside American and British and Australian
troops from day one of the war in Iraq. Just like Congress did in 1996
when it legislatively brought Ireland in as a full participant in the
Visa Waiver Program, it is time for us to take a stand and support our
allies in the war on terror.
As a country, we look forward to continuing our strong friendship
with Poland and its new President Lech Kaczynski. Is this then a
country that we don't want to allow its citizens to come to this
country? Is this a country we want to say ``thanks for your help'' but
we won't help your citizens come to the U.S.? I think there is a better
course of action. Colleagues, this is an to opportunity for us to
strengthen that relationship in a real and substantial way. Open a
pathway for those that have supported us to come visit our country. In
that way--in this small way--we can reach back the hand of an ally that
has reached out to help us in the War on Terror. I urge my colleagues
to support the Santorum-Mikulski-Frist amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the fight to
right a wrong in America's visa program. It is time to extend the Visa
Waiver Program to Poland. I am pleased to have formed bipartisan
partnership with

[[Page S4679]]

Senator Santorum and Senator Frist to introduce this amendment to get
it done.
In September 2004, Senator Santorum and I met with a hero of the cold
war, Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk shipyard,
he took Poland and the world with him. He told us that the visa issue
is a question of honor for Poland. That day we introduced a bill to
once again stand in solidarity with the father of Solidarity by
extending the Visa Waiver Program to Poland.
Two months ago, I had the honor of meeting with Poland's new
President, Lech Kaczynski. We reaffirmed the close ties between the
Polish and American peoples. And we heard loud and clear that the Visa
Waiver Program remains a high priority for Poland.
The people of Poland don't understand, and frankly neither do I, why
France is among the 27 countries of the Visa Waiver Program but Poland
is not. Poland, whose troops joined us in the opening days of war in
Iraq. Nine hundred Polish troops stand with us there today. Seventeen
Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq and 27 wounded. Poland, whose
troops are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, sending 1,000 Polish
soldiers to help lead NATO's mission there. The United States is
blessed with few allies as stalwart as Poland. But we tell a
grandmother in Gdansk she needs a visa to visit her grandchildren in
America.
This amendment will allow Poland and any other European Union country
with troops in Iraq or Afghanistan today to join the Visa Waiver
Program for 2 years on probationary status. It will allow Polish
citizens to travel to the U.S. for tourism or business for up to 60
days without needing to stand in line for a visa. Shouldn't we make it
easier for the Pulaskis and Marie Curies to visit our country?
We know our borders will be no less secure because of this amendment.
But we know our alliance will be more secure. I thank my colleagues for
their support.
I am glad the Santorum-Mikulski amendment is being considered. It
shows that when we work together we can get a lot done. I thank both
Senators from Pennsylvania for their help and cooperation to get this
amendment agreed to.
This amendment rights a wrong in America's visa program.
It is time to extent the visa waiver program to Poland. I am pleased
to have formed bipartisan partnership with Senator Santorum and Senator
Frist to get it done.
In September 2004, Senator Santorum and I met with the hero of the
cold war--Lech Walesa. When he jumped over the wall of the Gdansk
shipyard he took Poland and the world with him. He told us that the
visa issue is a question of honor for Poland. That day, we introduced
bill to once again stand in solidarity and with the father of
Solidarity by extending the visa waiver program to Poland.
Two months ago, I met with Poland's new President, Lech Kaczynski. We
reaffirmed close ties between the Polish and American peoples. We hear
loud and clear that the visa waiver program is a high priority for
Poland.
Why is it important?
The people of Poland don't understand, and frankly, neither do I, why
France is among the 27 countries of the visa waiver program but Poland
is not. Poland, whose troops joined us in the opening days of war in
Iraq, has had 900 troops stand with us there today. Mr. President, 17
Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq and 27 were wounded. Polish
troops are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. One thousand Polish
soldiers help lead NATO's mission there.
The United States is blessed with few allies as stalwart as Poland,
but we tell a grandmother in Gdansk she needs a visa to visit her
grandchildren in America.
What will it do?
This amendment will allow Poland and any other EU country with troops
in Iraq or Afghanistan today to join the visa waiver program for 2
years on probationary status.
It will allow Polish citizens to travel to the United States for
tourism or business for up to 60 days without needing to stand in line
for a visa.
Shouldn't we make it easier for the Pulaskis and Marie Curies to
visit our country? We know our borders will be no less secure because
of this amendment, but we know our alliance will be more secure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4000) was agreed to.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we are prepared to go with the
amendment by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. I ask unanimous
consent that we have a 2-hour time agreement on the Cornyn amendment
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my
understanding that we have under unanimous consent my amendment and
then a Democratic amendment and then the Ensign amendment. Is the
Senator talking about changing that order?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am talking about changing the order.
When the Senator from Oklahoma and I last talked, Senator Kyl had asked
for more time and there were discussions. It is my understanding that
we were trying to work through to simplify the action once it got to
the floor. My interest is finding an amendment which I can bring to the
floor and debate and vote. I am prepared to go any direction
practicable to achieve that. We now have Senator Vitter on the floor
who has another amendment. But may we hear from the Senator from
Oklahoma as to what his concerns are?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe we are ready with our amendment,
and under the unanimous consent we would be next. We are making some
modifications right now. We could use a little time. We are ready to go
in our place in line, unless it works out by unanimous consent that
Senator Ensign and I change places so that my amendment would come up
after the next Democratic amendment. That is what I will be willing to
do.
I ask unanimous consent that we stay on the current unanimous consent
request, with the exception that Senator Ensign's amendment be traded
with mine, and I will take his place after the next amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have
been ready to go, urging relatively short time agreements. We have a
whole series of proposals from that side and virtually none from here.
This has been sort of a jump ball. We are trying to adopt to that. We
have a Democratic amendment that we are prepared to go to. I am more
than glad to work out with the floor manager as to time limits. The
Cornyn amendment we had not expected would come up. It reaches the
heart of the issue, and our side needs at least an hour for it. I know
the Inhofe amendment has been a matter that has been discussed. We were
trying to work out a time agreement for consideration of a side-by-
side. There has been a good deal of discussion and desire to try to
work out a relatively limited amount of time. We are not interested in
prolonging that discussion and debate. I think people would like some
time to try to figure that out. I think when they have that, we could
have a relatively short period of time for the consideration of it. I
am familiar with the Ensign amendment. Senator Vitter and Senator
Cornyn have amendments. We are prepared to have a short time agreement.
Our concern is that we have a whole series of Republican amendments,
and we are not having Democratic amendments. We want to try to work
this thing through. We have had a short time. I have every intention of
suggesting to our side that we have short

[[Page S4680]]

times. But we need to at least try to work out with the floor manager
some opportunity for the consideration of our side.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, do I understand the Senator from
Massachusetts to mean he would be prepared to go, if we revert to the
original schedule, with Senator Inhofe and take the Inhofe amendment
now under a time agreement?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am glad to do the Inhofe amendment. I
understand there is going to be a side-by-side, but I can't enter into
a time agreement on that until that thing is finished. I know what the
Senator's amendment is. I know people want to debate it. But in terms
of limiting the time, until we have the side-by-side, I cannot enter
into a time agreement. When we have a side-by-side, we would enter into
a short time agreement--I think an hour or an hour and half evenly
divided. There isn't any desire to prolong this. We are going to be on
this bill--I understand there are 16 more amendments on that side which
are serious amendments. We are going to be on this legislation. We made
good progress today. I am glad to make some progress. That happens to
be the reality on this. Maybe later in the afternoon we could get a
short time agreement. But until we work out the side-by-side language
on it, I would not be able to enter into a time agreement at this time
on the Inhofe amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it would be my suggestion, if we can't
work out a time agreement on the Inhofe amendment, subject to an
agreement on all sides, that we try to get the side-by-side before the
afternoon is up so we can take up the Inhofe amendment first thing
tomorrow morning, hopefully, on a limited time agreement. Would that be
acceptable?
Mr. INHOFE. No. I respectfully say to the chairman that we are ready
to go with our amendment, and the unanimous consent request propounded
by the minority leader has a Democratic amendment prior to mine. I
don't know. Is that still in the order? I ask if it is. If it is not, I
ask for regular order.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, is there a unanimous consent agreement
setting up the Inhofe amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The previous agreement has been negated.
Mr. SPECTER. Will the Chair repeat that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The previous agreement has been negated.
Mr. INHOFE. The previous unanimous consent has been negated; is that
my understanding?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. INHOFE. How, might I ask, did that happen?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By a subsequent unanimous consent request.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed
to the Cornyn amendment with a time agreement of 2 hours, equally
divided. There has been a suggestion by Senator Cornyn that he can take
less time. Perhaps Senator Kennedy can take less. But the consent
agreement is for 2 hours, equally divided, with no second degrees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Then I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the
Vitter amendment for 45 minutes, equally divided, with no second-degree
amendments.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad, when we get to the Vitter amendment, to go
for 45 minutes, but I think it is our turn after disposing of the
Cornyn amendment. Senator Lieberman has an amendment, the Lieberman-
Brownback amendment. We can agree to a short time limit on that. We
would want to go back and forth.
Mr. SPECTER. Can we have a time agreement on Lieberman-Brownback, 45
minutes equally decided?
Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest an hour. I think we can get it done in 45.
Mr. SPECTER. One hour equally divided, no second-degree amendments.
Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, may I hear the unanimous
consent request?
Mr. SPECTER. The unanimous consent request is to go next to the
Lieberman-Brownback amendment for 1 hour, equally divided, with no
second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, we already have a
unanimous consent to go to the Cornyn amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. We already had the unanimous consent to go to the Cornyn
amendment.
Mr. President, I ask consent that we then lock in the Vitter
amendment next in sequence, for 45 minutes, equally divided.
Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, the problem is, I say
respectfully to our chairman, we are being left out of this queue. If
we are going right now to a Democratic amendment, under the regular
order I should be the next amendment. As it is now, it would be the
Cornyn amendment and then the Democratic amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. I modify the request. Senator Vitter is moved. After
Lieberman, we go to the Inhofe amendment, and perhaps by that time we
can have them laid down, side by side, and before we begin debate, have
a time agreement.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, we have been trying to get in the
amendment queue for a couple of days. We would love to get locked in,
along with this.
Mr. SPECTER. We will move to get Senator Ensign in the queue, but we
can start on the Cornyn amendment, and we will talk about this in the
cloakroom.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have no objection. I think for the time
being we have an order now for the next three. I have no objection to
going at sometime to Ensign. I expect that would be the regular order.
But for all intents and purposes, we agree to the three outlined here.
I can understand they will probably follow along, but for all intents
and purposes, we agree to the three.
Mr. SPECTER. Senator Kennedy is correct. May we proceed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
requests are agreed to.
The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 3965, as Modified

Mr. CORNYN. I send a modification to amendment 3965 to the desk for
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself and Mr.
Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 3965, as modified.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3965), as modified, is as follows:

On page 295, strike lines 14 through 16 and insert the
following:
``(B) by the alien, if--
``(i) the alien has been employed in H-2C status for a
cumulative period of not less than 4 years;
``(ii) an employer attests that the employer will employ
the alien in the offered job position; and
``(iii) the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies
that there are not sufficient United States workers who are
able, willing, qualified, and available to fill the job
position.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the bill in the Senate is a massive piece
of legislation creating a number of new programs within our immigration
system. Obviously, we have talked a lot about border security and ways
we can tighten our border to make sure we know who is coming into the
country and why they are here.
Second, we also need to make sure we have a successful worksite
verification program to make sure people who present themselves for
employment in the United States are, indeed, legally authorized to work
in the United States.
This is an enormously important comprehensive approach. While I hope
it is clear that there are some segments of the approach I differ with
and we are trying to improve, from my perspective, I do support the
approach of

[[Page S4681]]

comprehensive immigration reform because we need to deal with the
security demands of this problem, and we also need to deal with the
economic demands of the problem.
One of the ways the underlying bill purports to do that is by
creating what is called a guest worker program. One component of the
guest worker program is as follows. For people who are not yet in the
United States but who want to come in the future, this plan creates a
guest worker program, but what it fails to do is to match up willing
workers who want to qualify within this program with an actual job. In
other words, what it does is creates a phenomenon whereby individuals
who participate in the program can literally self-petition without
having an employer sponsor that petition for them to get a green card--
in other words, to become a legal permanent resident and be put on a
pathway to American citizenship.
This amendment strikes that position of the underlying bill which
would allow individuals participating in this guest worker program to
self-petition; that is, without an employer being there to sponsor them
and acknowledge and attest that no American worker is willing or has
indicated a willingness to perform that job.
This is a fundamental worker protection provision which I hope my
colleagues will support. If we don't agree to this amendment, it means
individuals can come to the United States as a guest worker and then
self-petition without having an employer there to sponsor their
application for legal permanent residency and can thereby be on a path
to become an American citizen and end up competing with American
workers for those jobs.
We all understand America is a compassionate country. We want to make
sure we do this immigration reform plan correctly. One of the things we
do not want to do is actually hurt American workers. Unless we strike
the self-petition provision, we will be doing exactly that. We need to
make sure before someone can come in and get a job that, No. 1, they
have a job and have not just self-petitioned and then become self-
employed and perhaps even become a burden on the American taxpayer
through various welfare benefits they might receive. We need to make
sure before someone gets a job that the employer acknowledges and
attests that they put it up, they advertised it, and they sought
American workers to fill that job, but, in fact, no American worker has
come forward. Only under those circumstances do I believe a guest
worker ought to be able to fill that job. This underlying bill does not
provide for that.
This amendment would say that after 4 years of cumulative employed
status as an H-2C worker, before someone can apply for and receive a
green card, they must do two things: No. 1, they have to find an
employer willing to sponsor them; and No. 2, they have to attest that
no American worker has stepped forward when that job has been offered
to the public at large; otherwise, we will find this guest worker
program in direct conflict with the needs of native, American-born
workers and otherwise legal immigrants. That would be a terrible
direction for us to head down.
This is one of those provisions of the bill with which, since it is
600 pages long, many Members may not be intimately familiar. I hope by
filing this amendment and by having this debate they can inform
themselves and hopefully agree to support this amendment which is
designed to protect American workers and to put the interests of
American workers first. Then and only then can a participant in this
guest worker program get the job that an American had an opportunity to
get but decided not to apply.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield such time as I might use.
We will look at exactly who these individuals are who are going to
come into the United States and what the process is.
First, we will find out that an employer needs a particular kind of
function to be able to continue their business--maybe it is related to
the employment of other individuals. They search around to try, for
some 60 days, to see if there is an American prepared to take that job
at that salary. They cannot find an American prepared to take that job,
and they still need to have that particular function filled. So they
find out there is a willing person from overseas prepared to take that
particular job, get paid the particular wages mentioned for that
particular profile, and that individual then comes to the United States
and works for that particular employer.
Under the current legislation, we are saying that after a period of 4
years--or even before the 4-year-period--if the employer wants to
petition for a green card for that particular employee, they can go
ahead and do that. That is in the law at the present time.
Senator Cornyn's amendment does not do that. We provide after 4 years
that if the individual wants to make a petition for that particular
job, they ought to be entitled to do so. They will still have to wait
the 5 years in order to become a citizen. That is a total of 9 years to
be able to become a citizen. Senator Cornyn does not want that
particular right for that particular worker.
One of the things we have seen over the period of years, going back
to the Bracero issue in question where we had individuals who came into
the United States and were extraordinarily exploited--they were
exploited all the way through by unscrupulous employers because those
particular workers did not have any rights in order to be able to
protect themselves. In the 1960s, we got rid of the Bracero because it
was such a shameful aspect in this country's employment history.
We want to avoid the same circumstance with this new legislation. We
have tried to learn from 1986, when we had amnesty. We also should have
had the prosecution of employers employing individuals who should not
have been employed, but that was never enforced.
Now we have the earned citizenship. Now we have protections for
workers to come in here.
Now, we have strengthened border security. We have learned from the
past. One of the important experiences of learning from the past is not
to permit these workers to be exploited. One of the best ways to ensure
that is to give them--at least after 4 years of working in the United
States--the opportunity of getting on the path for a green card and
eventually citizenship.
Now, the Senator from Texas does not want that. He wants to leave all
of the power with the employer. Well, I do not buy that. The employer
starts out saying: Look, I need a worker. I can't get a worker. I
really need you. You come on in here. I will really look out after you.
But I want to tell you something: unless you are going to work those
extra hours--and I might not pay you overtime--unless you are going to
do this or unless you are going to do that, I will never petition for
you. And you are not going to be able to petition for yourself.
So I think it is an issue about whether we are going to respect
individuals and have as much respect for employees as we have for the
employers.
It is interesting that under this legislation, if an employee comes
in, and the employer likes that person, they can go ahead and make the
petition now for the green card. They have the power to do that in the
first year, the second year, the third year, and the fourth year. So we
are just swinging all of this power into the hands of the employers.
If you accept the Cornyn amendment, you are effectively leaving
people high and dry on that. I do not think that is what we are trying
to do.
We are trying to have fairness in the legislation. We are trying to
have legality, strong border security. We are trying to have an
employer-employee relationship where the employer is going to know that
employee, has the documents and, therefore, will not go out and hire
other employees who are here illegally and give them depressed wages,
which will depress the wages on Americans and American workers, which
is the current case.
We are saying we want to stop the exploitation of both those
individuals and what is happening to American workers. But we want to
at least say that after 4 years, where this individual has filled an
important slot that no American worker was prepared to fill, and they
want to be a part of the whole American dream, play by the

[[Page S4682]]

rules, pay their taxes, do what any citizen would do in the United
States but the employer said: No, I am not going to do it, and then
they have to go back to their country, it leaves all the power with the
employer and denies the employee respect, which I think will invite
further kinds of exploitation.
We do not want to go back to the Bracero period. And this is starting
us back down that road. I think it is the wrong way to resolve this
particular issue. I hope the amendment will not be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to make sure our colleagues
understand exactly what this amendment does. It is very short. Let me
read from it. What it says is one can qualify for a guest worker
program if ``the alien has been employed in H-2C status'' and
maintained that ``for a cumulative period of not less than 4 years. . .
.''
Let me make clear, that was part of a negotiation that Senator McCain
and Senator Graham and others and I entered into before we offered the
modification because they felt it would be fairer. I agreed that was a
reasonable request on their part. I would hope that others would feel
the same way.
But the second and third parts are the guts of this amendment. It
also requires that:

An employer attests that the employer will employ the alien
in the offered job position; and--

And this is the most important part. This is the American worker
protection--

the Secretary of Labor determines and certifies that there
are not sufficient United States workers who are able,
willing, qualified, and available to fill the job position.

Now, this underlying bill provides a lot of protection for guest
workers who qualify under this program. And I agree that they should be
protected from exploitation. That is one of the reasons this law has
been created. But it does not create exploitation at the hands of an
employer any more than any other employee in America is subjected to
exploitation by their employer. In other words, this does not bind the
guest worker to a particular employer. Indeed, they can get this
certification from any employer who has a job they want to fill subject
to the requirement that the Secretary of Labor provide this attestation
that there are not sufficient U.S. workers ``able, willing, qualified,
and available to fill the job position.''
This amendment does not say these individuals cannot eventually get a
green card if they otherwise qualify, having been sponsored by an
employer, and for a job that no American has stepped forward to fill.
So it does not tie a worker to a particular employer. It does not limit
that. It does not say these guest workers cannot ultimately get a green
card.
Ultimately, this is not so much about protections for the guest
worker as it is protections for the American worker. Indeed, one of the
attributes of sovereignty is that the United States has to regain some
control not only of our borders but of our broken employment system
which, right now, employs millions of people who cannot legally work in
the United States. We are trying to fix that. But it does not fix the
problem to say that individuals can continue to come into the United
States and compete with American workers.
We ought to be all about trying to work out a system that protects
American workers and yet allows guest workers who qualify to fill the
gaps that American workers cannot fill. I suggest to my colleagues if
you believe the rights of this guest worker are paramount and the
rights of the American worker are subservient--if you really believe
that, then you ought to vote against the amendment. But if you believe
we ought to protect the rights of American workers first, and then, in
the event the Secretary of Labor certifies there are not sufficient
American workers, allow guest workers to work--if you think that is a
better system, then you should vote for this amendment.
In no sense does this subject any guest worker to exploitation. They
are protected under this bill by the labor laws that protect all
American workers. All it does is protect American workers from having
to compete against guest workers for jobs that would be rightfully
theirs and available except for the fact that someone has self-
petitioned and taken a job that an American would otherwise want and
would be able to do.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have difficulty following the logic of
my good friend from Texas because American workers are protected when
the temporary worker is protected.
Now, let me give you a possible factual situation: An employer has
one of these temporary workers. They have gone out and petitioned and
can't find an American to do this job. They can't find an American to
do the job. Then they have the foreigner who comes in and works for
them, and works for them for 4 years.
Now, under our proposal, after the 4-year period, if they have paid
their taxes, if they have not gotten into trouble with the law the rest
of the way, they can petition for a green card. Then, if they follow
all the procedures, pass the naturalization exam, they can become a
citizen 5 years after that--9 years.
Now, this is what Mr. Cornyn, the Senator from Texas says: Look,
after the 4 years, we are going to take away the right of that person--
unless the employer is going to petition for them, unless the employer
is going to do it.
Now, you tell me what is going to happen in a lot of the workplaces.
The employee says: Look, Mr. Employer, when are you going to petition
for me? I have worked for you for 4 years. Under the old bill, they
used to be able to say I could petition. But they passed the Cornyn
amendment, and it says, no. I am completely dependent upon you.
Well, the employer says: Don't ask for a raise. Take a wage cut. Take
a wage cut for a couple of years. Don't complain about unfair working
conditions. Don't complain about it. Don't complain about working a
little longer, working Saturdays, maybe a few hours on Sunday. If you
complain about it, I am not going to petition for you. You are going to
be left high and dry.
You tell me how that protects American workers. Once you get the
exploitation of the temporary worker, we see what happens, as we have
seen today: Employers are employing the undocumented and they are
paying them a good deal less. That is an adverse impact and effect on
American wages. If you raise those wages and give them the protections
we have under our legislation, that is going to protect American
workers.
I fail to understand--when you give the whole deck of cards to the
employer, and tell the employer he can do anything he wants with that
employee--how that employee is protected and how an American worker is
protected. I just do not get it. I just do not see it. It defies
history. It defies the history of the old employment. It can work very
well for that particular employer because he has that employee right by
the throat because if that employee complains, does not do what the
employer says, that person is on their way back to whatever country
they came from, or they will disappear into the community. That is not
good. That is what we are trying to avoid--exploitation.
I think this is what we have tried to do throughout the bill both in
terms of the exploitation of workers, in terms of the legal system, the
legal structure, and in terms of the border security, and the others. I
have difficulty in following the rationale and the reasoning that if
you give one person in the employer-employee relationship all of the
cards, that somehow inures to the benefit of the employee. It never has
in the history of the relationship between workers and employers, and
it will not. And it will not if that is the outcome of the Cornyn
amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. Yes.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts whether there is a requirement that an employer sponsor a
guest worker when they first enter the country under the H-2C program?
Mr. KENNEDY. The answer to that is affirmative, yes.

[[Page S4683]]

Mr. CORNYN. I would ask, if I may, Mr. President, if the Senator will
yield for one more question, whether it is true that, for example,
high-skilled workers, H-1B workers--people with math, science,
engineering degrees, and the like--whether there is a requirement that
there be an employer who actually sponsors those workers before they
can receive one of those types of visas?
Mr. KENNEDY. The answer is affirmative, yes.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a very fundamental reason why. You
are talking about the H-1B. You are talking about the most highly
skilled, highly educated, and highly competent individuals in the
world--H-1B--going on to universities, going into the high-tech areas,
individuals for which the world is their oyster. They do not suffer the
kind of exploitation, the kind of humiliation that other workers
suffer. These workers are taking jobs that American workers will not
take.
There is a big difference between that and going to the top companies
of America and working for the CEO, when you have all the education,
the professional degrees. Those individuals are not the ones being
exploited. They never have been, and they are not today. It is an
entirely different situation.
We are talking about the tough, difficult work that no American will
take. We are talking about the history of these kinds of jobs. We have
seen it. We have read about it. We have experienced it. I did,
certainly, in the early 1960s, going across the Southwest in the
Bracero Program. Exploitation is one of the sad aspects of American
employment history. We do not want to go there.
The H-2Bs in my State are doing very well at universities and
colleges and enormously successful businesses. The idea behind the H-
2Bs was getting the very able and gifted people. As history has shown,
that results in the hiring of additional people because of their
abilities. They end up, as a result of these programs, adding key
elements of success to various businesses and employment expands.
Generally, those are good jobs with good benefits and good retirement.
That is an entirely different situation. I am glad we were able to
clear that up.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from
Massachusetts candidly responding to the questions I asked. What his
answers established was that in order for guest workers under his
proposal to come into the country in the first place, they have to have
an employer, someone who has indicated that there is a job available
for them. Under the amendment, they could work in that job for a
cumulative period of up to 4 years. But for some reason, under the
current bill, after 4 years, you would no longer have to have an
employer who would certify that they had a job available for that guest
worker to do and that no American was available to do it.
I also appreciate the Senator's candor in answering the question
about highly skilled workers. As his answer indicated, highly skilled
workers cannot come into the country unless there is an employer who is
willing to sponsor them. My point is that we ought to make our
immigration law uniform across the employment spectrum, whether you are
a high-skilled worker or whether you are a low-skilled worker.
The Senator mentioned the Bracero Program and reports of exploitation
of workers in America's past. I won't debate that with him. I have read
of reports of problems with the Bracero Program. While the program as a
whole was pretty good, I won't debate whether there were some problems
associated with it. But America, in 2006, is not America in the 1950s.
The legal protection that is available for guest workers under this
program, the vigilance of the media and advocacy groups, will make it
virtually impossible for the kind of exploitation the Senator talks
about to occur. What happens is, in spite of the protections offered to
the guest workers under our labor laws and despite the vigilance of the
media and advocacy groups that would likely disclose any problems with
a relationship between a guest worker and that employer, what we are
finding out is that the one who ultimately has to pay the price for
this concern, that I believe will not be realized and is not real, is
the American worker who can't find a job because we have offered that
job to a guest worker who has come into the United States.
At bottom, we ought to be as sure as we possibly can that whatever we
do doesn't create more problems for American workers. The answer is,
let's give American workers every opportunity to find jobs and then, if
we can't find a sufficient workforce, let's give guest workers an
opportunity to fill in those gaps. That is a worthy objective. But we
should not be blind to the potential dangers to American workers losing
jobs to guest workers under this program, unless the protections in
this amendment are adopted--that an employer attest that the employer
will employ the alien in the offered job position and the Secretary of
Labor determines and certifies that there are not sufficient U.S.
workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to fill the job
position.
I don't know whether there are others who want to speak either for or
against the amendment. I know we agreed to an hour between us.
Depending on whether the distinguished manager of the bill on the
minority side would be interested in yielding time back, I think we
have had a chance to cover the merits of this particular amendment. I
am prepared to yield the remainder of our time back, if he is likewise
prepared to yield the remainder of his time.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Texas, before
he went to a necessary meeting at the White House, indicated he was
prepared to yield back his time if I yielded back my time. I am
prepared to yield back my time.
Mr. President, I withhold my request. I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Nebraska, if I have it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
(The remarks of Mr. Hagel are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the time has been yielded back by Senator
Cornyn and Senator Kennedy on the Cornyn amendment. We are now ready to
proceed with the Lieberman-Brownback amendment. If they will come to
the floor, we can move ahead.
In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, we had expected the Cornyn amendment to
take 2 hours, which was the time agreement. Time was yielded back.
Senator Vitter has now come to the floor. We are unable to proceed with
the amendment in regular form, but I do think it would be appropriate
to have Senator Vitter discuss his amendment, which could abbreviate
the time which we would need when he lays it down. So, if I may, I
would like to yield the floor to the Senator from Louisiana for
purposes of having him discuss his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

Amendment No. 3964

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
committee for creating this opportunity to begin to discuss this
amendment.
This is amendment No. 3964. This amendment would close some very
serious invitations for fraud that are contained in the bill as it now
stands.

[[Page S4684]]

I said on the floor before that I have some very serious reservations
with this bill. One of those is that it is riddled with loopholes and
invitations for fraud. There are many of these, in my opinion. As I
have said many times over, the devil is in the details. Senators need
to read this bill. Senators need to look at the details and understand
how it would work, or more accurately how it would not work in
practice, because this is not just an esoteric debate on the Senate
floor. This would be law which would be put into practice, and we need
to think about the hard nuts-and-bolts issues of how this would work or
how it would not work in practice.
Unfortunately, I believe these loopholes, these invitations to fraud,
and these other detail problems are numerous in the bill. My amendment,
No. 3964, simply highlights and hopefully will correct, if adopted, a
couple of these specific provisions. These are among the most important
invitations for fraud and problems. In particular, there are glaring
loopholes contained in section 601 of the bill.
We have heard over and over how this bill does not contain amnesty.
It is not amnesty, the proponents say. And one of the reasons they say
that illegal aliens are put into different categories is according to
how many years they have been in the country. They are treated
differently according to how many years they have been in the country.
President Bush made this point on Monday night specifically, that folks
should be treated differently if they have been in the country for many
years, if they have put down roots, if they have family here, et
cetera, versus if they have just come into the country and have been
here a clearly shorter period of time. That is a reasonable argument.
The problem is, when you look at the details of the bill, when you
actually read the bill, again the devil is in the details. The details
of this bill make a mockery of that distinction. Why do I say that? It
is because under the provisions of the bill that say how an illegal
alien may prove how long he has been in the country, there are many
different types of proof which are acceptable--certain documents,
certain sworn affidavits from employers, certain records. But another
form of acceptable proof is nothing more than a statement by that
illegal alien himself, signed by that person, a piece of paper saying:
I have been in the country some years, under these circumstances; here
is my signature.
Again, for this to be an acceptable method of proof to put an illegal
alien in the best category that offers the best track to citizenship, a
program I would absolutely characterize as amnesty, obviously means
that these distinctions, depending on how long you have been in the
country, are meaningless. In practice, all a person has to do to put
himself in the best category, the most lucrative category that will
lead to this amnesty, is to sign a piece of paper saying it is so. That
is an enormous invitation to fraud. That is a huge loophole which will
make all of the related provisions of this bill completely unworkable.
There are other aspects of the bill that are similar. There are other
distinctions between having been in the country 2 years, less than 2
years versus between 2 and 5 years. Again, the devil is in the details.
When one looks at the proof required for these various categories,
again a simple affidavit signed by any third party is acceptable in
that case. Again, that makes the whole system unenforceable. That makes
all of these distinctions meaningless and, in fact, ridiculous.
We need to close these loopholes. We need to require more significant
proof and documentary evidence than a simple affidavit signed either by
the illegal alien himself or any third person. That is what my
amendment would correct. If a Senator wants to be half serious about
making this work, if a Senator wants to put any meaning behind his or
her words in favor of enforcement, clearly we need to fix these glaring
deficiencies in the bill.
In summary, my amendment would close just some of the loopholes in
section 602 of the underlying bill. These loopholes would not only
allow fraud but create incentives for illegal aliens to commit fraud.
My amendment would strike the language allowing an alien to prove
employment history by providing a self-signed sworn declaration--
nothing more than a piece of paper with the illegal alien's own
signature.
My amendment would require that sworn affidavits from nonrelatives
who have direct knowledge of the alien's work be corroborated by the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and include contact
information of the affiant, the nature and duration of the
relationship, his name and address, and the phone number of the
affiant's relationship. In other words, these types of affidavits can
at least be checked. At least the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security and his personnel can put some rigor into the process
to see if these statements by third persons are true.
My amendment would make the types of other documents provided to
prove work history the same for those illegal aliens who have been
living in the United States for over 5 years and those who have been
here between 2 and 5 years, bringing some more rigor, some more demand
for objective evidence into the enforcement mechanism.
My amendment would clarify that the alien has the burden of proving
his or her employment history by a preponderance of the evidence.
Again, I am very fearful that the Senate is doing on this matter what
we do all too often. We have these debates. We get very involved in
words and arguments. Yet we ignore where the rubber really hits the
road--the details, the practicality of enforcement: is this system
really going to work? Are these promises really going to be borne out
to the American people? The devil is in the details. We need to have a
system that is workable.
We have lived this history before. The 1986 experience was an utter
failure because the enforcement mechanism was completely unworkable.
Are we going to repeat that history or are we going to have enforcement
that is workable, that is meaningful?
If we are going to make these distinctions, they have to be able to
be meaningful in practice. If an illegal alien can put himself in the
best category on that path to amnesty versus the category in which he
truly belongs based on the number of years he has truly been in the
country, then all of these promises by the proponents of the bill are
utterly meaningless and the enforcement mechanism will be utterly
unworkable. We need to fix these sorts of glaring loopholes and
invitations to fraud in the bill.
Let me not oversell my amendment. My amendment does not fix all of
those loopholes, it does not close down all of those outright
invitations to fraud, but it does address two of the most important,
two of the most serious. I invite all Senators on both sides of this
debate to come together to pass this amendment.
Again, I think this is one of these gut-check amendments. This is one
of the basic threshold test amendments, like the security fence
amendment was. If a Senator isn't willing to close this sort out of
outrageous loophole, then that Senator, in my opinion, is not serious
in the least about making enforcement work. This is an absolute minimum
to begin closing these serious loopholes.
I look forward to coming back to this amendment tomorrow when I will
be able to present it formally on the floor and have the entire Senate
take it up. I look forward to Senators from both sides of the aisle--in
fact, both sides of this debate--coming together in support of my
amendment because it is a basic gut-check amendment. It is an absolute
minimum that needs to be done to begin to close these outrageous
loopholes and invitations to fraud in the bill.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I oppose the Cornyn amendment because I
believe it undermines the careful balance between American workers and
business that is contained in the bill.
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, S. 2611, allows guest
workers under the new H-2C visa to work initially on a temporary visa
and to apply later for a green card if their work is needed over a long
period of time. Under the program, after 1-year the employer of the
immigrant guest worker could petition for a green card. Alternatively,
after 4-years the immigrant guest worker could petition on his or her
own for permanent resident status.

[[Page S4685]]

The Cornyn amendment would strike the right of immigrant guest
workers to self-petition. This is a dangerous proposal. One of the
reasons that guest worker programs have failed in the past is that
prior programs did not provide labor rights to the temporary workers.
By placing the rights of petition exclusively in the hands of
employers, unscrupulous actors have the ability to manipulate or abuse
workers by controlling the workers' access to legal immigration status.
The bill before us is a compromise package that seeks to balance the
rights of American business and labor, and that enhances our economy
and national security by bringing illegal workers out the shadows. The
balance depends in part on treating all workers equally, including
giving immigrant workers the same labor rights that are available to
U.S. citizens. If all workers possess the same rights, then employers
cannot depress wages by preying on illegal workers, or workers whose
status is held hostage by their employers. The business community
understands this issue and therefore the Essential Worker Coalition, a
broad coalition of employers and associations calling for comprehensive
immigration reform, is opposed to the Cornyn amendment.
Under the bill, immigrants who decide to self-petition will have to
meet all of the other requirements for a green card. In the new guest
worker program, these requirements include a work requirement, passing
security and background checks, demonstrating that the immigrant is
learning English and civics, and undergoing medical exams.
The self-petition provision in the bill is not a backdoor or a short
cut to citizenship. It should not be stricken by the Cornyn amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask consent that the vote in relation
to the Cornyn amendment occur at 6 o'clock this evening; provided
further that the amendment be temporarily set aside to allow Senator
Inhofe to offer an amendment; and finally, I ask consent that Senator
Cornyn be recognized for up to 2 minutes on his amendment prior to the
vote.
Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I am not the manager of
this bill, but I have been called into service because the manager on
our side is not immediately available. I apologize for that.
Senator Kennedy's staff informs me apparently Senator Lieberman will
not go forward with his amendment and Senator Kennedy would like to
have an amendment on our side before we go back to the other side.
Perhaps that can be worked out with the managers.
At this point, I am constrained to object to setting the amendment
aside.
Mr. SPECTER. In light of that objection, perhaps we can start with
some discussion by Senator Inhofe in the absence of setting aside the
amendment and having him lay down the amendment so we do not waste more
time.
I ask consent the vote be set at 6 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. If I could ask the acting majority leader a question, it
is my understanding the Lieberman amendment that was to be the
Democratic amendment between the two Republicans amendments is now not
going to be offered, at least at this time; that being the case, would
the Senator object to setting the current amendment aside for me to
bring mine up for consideration? Is this what the Senator is objecting
to?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes, the Senator is correct. I apologize to the Senator.
I'm not the manager of this bill. I am simply standing in for the
manager of the bill on our side who is not available at this moment.
That is what I have been asked to do on behalf of the manager.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Kennedy amendment you are talking about putting up
now, would that be considered next after this vote takes place on the
Cornyn amendment?
Mr. CONRAD. That is my understanding.
Mr. INHOFE. Is there any time that has been scheduled for his
amendment?
Mr. CONRAD. Not that I know of.
I apologize to the Senator. We are in this bit of a situation where
we have to have a manager of our bill here before those agreements can
be made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is currently
recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in an effort to not lose any more time,
we had an amendment by Senator Lieberman, which he decided not to
offer. It is more time to discuss the rules as to whether that
constitutes the Democratic amendment, but the suggestion has been made
that the Democrats are be agreeable to setting aside the Cornyn
amendment on the condition that a Democratic amendment will be
considered before Senator Inhofe's amendment is considered further, but
Senator Inhofe would be permitted to lay down his amendment and speak
for a few minutes. Is that acceptable?
Mr. CONRAD. With that understanding, that is entirely acceptable on
this side.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask consent for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to ask one more question.
After the Cornyn amendment, we will go to the Kennedy amendment. I am
locked in after that; is that our understanding?
Mr. CONRAD. It is the understanding of this Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. And this Senator.
It is our understanding, then, after we dispose of the Kennedy
amendment, then we come to my amendment; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4064

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the current
amendment and bring up amendment No. 4064.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself, Mr.
Byrd, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Coburn, Mr.
Burns, and Mr. Bunning, proposes an amendment numbered 4064.

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

(Purpose: To amend title 4 United States Code, to declare English as
the national language of the United States and to promote the patriotic
integration of prospective US citizens)

On page 295, line 22, strike ``the alien--'' and all that
follows through page 296, line 5, and insert ``the alien
meets the requirements of section 312.''.
On page 352, line 3, strike ``either--'' and all that
follows through line 15, and insert ``meets the requirements
of section 312(a) (relating to English proficiency and
understanding of United States history and Government).''.
On page 614, after line 5, insert the following:

SEC. 766. ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE

(a) In General.--Title 4, United States Code, is ``amended
by adding at the end the following:
``CHAPTER 6--LANGUAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT
``161.  Declaration of national language
``162.  Preserving and enhancing the role of the national language

``Sec. 161. Declaration of official language

``English is the national language of the United States.

Sec. 162. Preserving and enhancing the role of the national
language

``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 stated in
applicable law, 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

[[Page S4686]]

English. If exceptions are made, that does not create a
legal entitlement to additional services in that language
or any language other than English. If any forms are
issued by the Federal Government in a language other than
English (or such forms are completed in a language other
than English), the English language version of the form is
the sole authority for all legal purposes.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for title
4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the
following:

``6. Language of the Government............................161''.....

SEC. 767. REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURALIZATION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
a. Under United States law (8 U.S.C. 1423 (a)), lawful
permanent residents of the United States who have immigrated
from foreign countries must, among other requirements,
demonstrate an understanding of the English language, United
States history and Government, to become citizens of the
United States.
b. The Department of Homeland Security is currently
conducting a review of the testing process used to ensure
prospective United States citizens demonstrate said knowledge
of the English language and United States history and
government for the purpose of redesigning said test.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section only, the
following words are defined:
(1) Key documents.--The term ``key documents'' means the
documents that established or explained the foundational
principles of democracy in the United States, including the
United States Constitution and the amendments to the
Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights), the
Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the
Emancipation Proclamation.
(2) Key events.--The term ``key events'' means the critical
turning points in the history of the United States (including
the American Revolution, the Civil War, the world wars of the
twentieth century, the civil rights movement, and the major
court decisions and legislation) that contributed to
extending the promise of democracy in American life.
(3) Key ideas.--The term ``key ideas'' means the ideas that
shaped the democratic institutions and heritage of the United
States, including the notion of equal justice under the law,
freedom, individualism, human rights, and a belief in
progress.
(4) Key persons.--The term ``key persons'' means the men
and women who led the United States as founding fathers,
elected officials, scientists, inventors, pioneers, advocates
of equal rights, entrepreneurs, and artists.
(c) Goals for Citizenship Test Redesign.--The Department of
Homeland Security shall establish as goals of the testing
process designed to comply with provisions of [8 U.S.C.
1423(a)] that prospective citizens:
a. Demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the English
language for usage in everyday life;
b. Demonstrate an understanding of American common values
and traditions, including the principles of the Constitution
of the United States, the Pledge of Allegiance, respect for
the flag of the United States, the National Anthem, and
voting in public elections;
c. Demonstrate an understanding of the history of the
United States, including the key events, key persons, key
ideas, and key documents that shaped the institutions and
democratic heritage of the United States;
d. Demonstrate an attachment to the principles of the
Constitution of the United States and the well-being and
happiness of the people of the United States; and
e. Demonstrate an understanding of the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship in the United States.
(d) Implementation.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall implement changes to the testing process designed to
ensure compliance with [8 U.S.C. 1423(a)] not later than
January 1, 2008.

Mr. INHOFE. I know we will have a vote at 6 o'clock, so I will
paraphrase a few things so everyone will know in advance what we are
doing.
This is English as the national language amendment. We talked about
it at length last night. It has been very popular and enjoyed the
support of most of the Members in the Senate today.
We heard the other night when the President made his speech, among
other things:

. . . an ability to speak and write the English language is
very significant . . . English allows newcomers to go from
picking crops to opening a grocery . . . from cleaning
offices to running offices . . . from a life of low-paying
jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own.

He also said:

Every new citizen of the United States has an obligation to
our customs and values, including liberty and civic
responsibility, equality under God and tolerance for others
and the English language.

I recall President Clinton standing on the floor and making the
statement about the responsibility of new people coming into this
country. He said:

. . . they have the responsibility to enter the mainstream
of American life. That means learning English and learning
about our democratic system of government.

Many others have been quoted, going all the way back to Teddy
Roosevelt, that we must also learn one language. That language is
English.
This has been aired quite a number of times. In 1997, Senator Shelby
offered the amendment and never got a vote on the amendment, but he did
have a number of Democrats and Republicans as cosponsors of the
amendment. We currently have Senators Byrd, Bunning, Burns, Chambliss,
Coburn, Enzi, and Sessions as cosponsors of this amendment, and we have
not made an effort to get more cosponsors which we will do prior to
bringing it up after the Kennedy amendment.
The time has come to go ahead and do it and quit talking about it.
This time is now.
There has been a lot of polling data that shows that the vast
majority of Americans, the most recent one being the Zogby poll only a
couple of months ago, 84 percent of Americans want this as the
language. Interestingly enough, when they segregate out the Latinos who
responded to the polling, over 70 percent in many polls--which I will
go over when there is more time--support this as our national language.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question, briefly?
Mr. INHOFE. Of course.
Mr. CONRAD. Could the Senator share with this Senator and colleagues,
what is the upshot of the Senator's amendment? What is the force and
effect that would be provided in law if the Senator's amendment were
agreed to?
Mr. INHOFE. We would be joining 51 other countries that have English
as their language; 27 States have used this language in the State
legislature to make this their language.
Mr. CONRAD. Would it be that English would be the official language
of the country?
Mr. INHOFE. The national language, yes.
Mr. CONRAD. Are there legal requirements as to how that would apply?
Mr. INHOFE. There are, yes. There are some.
First of all, there are some exceptions. Our language says ``except
where otherwise provided in law.'' There are some exceptions. For
example, before the Court Interpreters Act, passed in 1978, defendants
did not have the right to an interpreter. It was up to the court's own
discretion. In 1978, they said that they did. This has not changed
that. This leaves that in place. We also have the bilingual ballots
requirement, Voting Rights Act. That is not changed by this. Maybe it
should be changed, but that should take special legislation that
addresses the Voting Rights Act.
The national disaster emergency evacuation provides if you had
something in California, for example, where there was a tsunami, you
could use the Chinese language in Chinatown, in places where it is
appropriate. It leaves those common sense things in place.
Mr. CONRAD. Could I say to the Senator, speaking for myself, I am
very interested in his legislation. If he could provide a copy of that
legislation and an interpretation to my office, I might well be a
cosponsor of the Senator's legislation.
My family came here as immigrants from Scandinavia. The first thing
they wanted to do was to learn English. My wife's family came here as
immigrants from Italy. The first thing they wanted to do was learn
English. I don't think we do people any favors by not having a
requirement in place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time of 6
o'clock has arrived, and the Cornyn amendment is the matter before the
Senate. It will be brought to a vote.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I also would like to
say, our family came from Germany, and that is the first thing they
did, too.

Amendment No. 3965, as Modified

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to tell my colleagues that we had
some

[[Page S4687]]

good-faith negotiations with Senator Cornyn. I am sorry I was unable to
talk to him before this vote. I know he had a previous engagement down
at the White House. But the Kennedy amendment will probably be a side-
by-side since there are still areas of the Cornyn amendment we have
difficulty agreeing to.
So I wish I could have talked with Senator Cornyn since I think our
differences are minimal, but we still have not resolved them.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Cornyn amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Craig
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Kohl
Rockefeller

The amendment (No. 3965), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. CORNYN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senate is coming in at 9 o'clock
tomorrow, as I understand it. As soon as we go on the bill tomorrow,
the first amendment will be offered by Senator Kennedy. Then the second
amendment will be offered by Senator Inhofe. The third will be offered
by Senator Akaka. The fourth will be offered by Senator Ensign. The
fifth will be offered by Senator Nelson. The sixth will be offered by
Senator Vitter. The seventh will be offered by Senator Durbin. The
eighth will be offered by Senator Kyl. And then our next amendment,
after a Democratic amendment, will be by Senator Chambliss.
What we would like to do is have the Senators present promptly, and
we would appreciate it if we get people down here about a half hour
before their amendment comes up. We had some dead time today because we
had nobody on deck. But we want to give people notice so we can proceed
expeditiously. We have a great many amendments, and we want to move on
them.
I ask unanimous consent that the time agreement on Senator Kennedy's
amendment be 10 minutes equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. So we will have an early vote tomorrow morning to get us
started.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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. CHAMBLISS. 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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________