To provide a date on which the authority of the section relating to the increasing of American competitiveness through a merit-based evaluation system for immigrants shall be terminated.

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2007

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

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

Pending:

Reid (for Kennedy/Specter) amendment No. 1150, in the
nature of a substitute.
Grassley/DeMint amendment No. 1166 (to amendment No. 1150),
to clarify that the revocation of an alien's visa or other
documentation is not subject to judicial review.
Cornyn modified amendment No. 1184 (to amendment No. 1150),
to establish a permanent bar for gang members, terrorists,
and other criminals.
Dodd/Menendez amendment No. 1199 (to amendment No. 1150),
to increase the number of green cards for parents of United
States citizens, to extend the duration of the new parent
visitor visa, and to make penalties imposed on individuals
who overstay such visas applicable only to such individuals.
Menendez amendment No. 1194 (to amendment No. 1150), to
modify the deadline for the family backlog reduction.
McConnell amendment No. 1170 (to amendment No. 1150), to
amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require
individuals voting in person to present photo identification.
Feingold amendment No. 1176 (to amendment No. 1150), to
establish commissions to review the facts and circumstances
surrounding injustices suffered by European Americans,
European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World
War II.
Durbin/Grassley amendment No. 1231 (to amendment No. 1150),
to ensure that employers make efforts to recruit American
workers.
Sessions amendment No. 1234 (to amendment No. 1150), to
save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years
after passage of this act, by preventing the earned income
tax credit, which is, according to the Congressional Research
Service, the largest anti-poverty entitlement program of the
Federal Government, from being claimed by Y temporary workers
or illegal aliens given status by this act until they adjust
to legal permanent resident status.
Sessions amendment No. 1235 (to amendment No. 1150), to
save American taxpayers up to $24 billion in the 10 years
after passage of this act, by preventing the earned income
tax credit, which is, according to the Congressional Research
Service, the largest anti-poverty entitlement program of the
Federal Government, from being claimed by Y temporary workers
or illegal aliens given status by this act until they adjust
to legal permanent resident status.
Lieberman amendment No. 1191 (to amendment No. 1150), to
provide safeguards against faulty asylum procedures and to
improve conditions of detention.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, as this bill has progressed through the
week, there has been, in my view, significant progress made. It has
truly been a tribute to the leadership on both sides, and I acknowledge
the leadership of the majority leader, Harry Reid, in terms of holding
people's feet to the fire to get us moving forward with immigration.
We hope to be able to bring this to a conclusion the week after we
get back from the Memorial Day break. I understand that this morning we
will have about four amendments, two on the Republican side, and two on
the Democratic side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is
recognized.

Amendment No. 1189 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Colorado,
Senator Allard, I believe there is an amendment at the desk, No. 1189.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and
ask for the immediate consideration of that amendment, No. 1189.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for Mr. Allard,
proposes an amendment numbered 1189 to amendment No. 1150.

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

(Purpose: To eliminate the preference given to people who entered the
United States illegally over people seeking to enter the country
legally in the merit-based evaluation system for visas)

In section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(1)(A)), as amended by section 502, in
the table in that section, strike the items relating to the
Supplemental schedule for Zs.

amendment no. 1250 to amendment no. 1150

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to
set aside the pending amendment, No. 1189, and ask for the immediate
consideration of my amendment No. 1250, which I believe is at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report.
The Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) proposes an amendment numbered
1250 to amendment No. 1150.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To address documentation of employment and to make an
amendment with respect to mandatory disclosure of information)

In section 601(i)(2)(C) (relating to other documents)--
(1) strike clause (VI) (relating to sworn affidavits);
(2) in clause (V), strike the semicolon at the end and
insert a period; and
(3) in clause (IV), add ``and'' at the end.
Strike section 604 (relating to mandatory disclosure of
information) and insert the following:

SEC. 604. MANDATORY DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, no Federal agency or bureau, or any officer or
employee of such agency or bureau, may--
(1) use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant
to an application filed under section 601 and 602, for any
purpose, other than to make a determination on the
application;
(2) make any publication through which the information
furnished by any particular applicant can be identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers, employees
or contractors of such agency, bureau, or approved entity, as
approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to examine
individual applications that have been filed.
(b) Required Disclosures.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Secretary of State shall provide the
information furnished pursuant to an application filed under
section 601 and 602, and any other information derived from
such furnished information, to--
(1) a law enforcement entity, intelligence agency, national
security agency, component of the Department of Homeland
Security, court, or grand jury in connection with a criminal
investigation or prosecution or a national security
investigation or prosecution, in each instance about an
individual suspect or group of suspects, when such
information is requested by such entity;
(2) a law enforcement entity, intelligence agency, national
security agency, or component of the Department of Homeland
Security in connection with a duly authorized investigation
of a civil violation, in each instance about an individual
suspect or group of suspects, when such information is
requested by such entity; or
(3) an official coroner for purposes of affirmatively
identifying a deceased individual, whether or not the death
of such individual resulted from a crime.
(c) Inapplicability After Denial.--The limitations under
subsection (a)--
(1) shall apply only until an application filed under
section 601 and 602 is denied and all opportunities for
administrative appeal of the denial have been exhausted; and
(2) shall not apply to the use of the information furnished
pursuant to such application in any removal proceeding or
other criminal or civil case or action relating to an alien
whose application has been granted that is based upon any
violation of law committed or discovered after such grant.
(d) Criminal Convictions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, information concerning whether the
applicant has at any time been convicted of a crime may be
used or released for immigration enforcement and law
enforcement purposes.
(e) Auditing and Evaluation of Information.--The Secretary
may audit and evaluate information furnished as part of any
application filed under sections 601 and 602, any application
to extend such status under section 601(k), or any
application to adjust status to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence under section 602, for
purposes of identifying fraud or fraud schemes, and may use
any evidence detected by means of audits and evaluations for
purposes of investigating, prosecuting or referring for
prosecution, denying, or terminating immigration benefits.
(f) Use of Information in Petitions and Applications
Subsequent to Adjustment of Status.--If the Secretary has
adjusted an alien's status to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence pursuant to section 602,
then at any time thereafter the Secretary may use the
information furnished by the alien in the application for
adjustment of status or in the applications for status
pursuant to sections 601 or 602 to make a

[[Page S6929]]

determination on any petition or application.
(g) Criminal Penalty.--Whoever knowingly uses, publishes,
or permits information to be examined in violation of this
section shall be fined not more than $10,000.
(h) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the use, or release, for immigration
enforcement purposes of information contained in files or
records of the Secretary or Attorney General pertaining to an
applications filed under sections 601 or 602, other than
information furnished by an applicant pursuant to the
application, or any other information derived from the
application, that is not available from any other source.
(i) References.--References in this section to section 601
or 602 are references to sections 601 and 602 of this Act and
the amendments made by those sections.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have been on this immigration bill now,
by some accounts, for 5 days. I will note that we started with a vote
on cloture on the motion to proceed at, I believe, 5:30 Monday
afternoon. We had Tuesday on the bill, we had Wednesday on the bill, we
had Thursday on the bill; here we are on Friday.
My understanding is that the agreement between the parties is that I
will be only allowed to offer one additional amendment, in addition to
the one currently pending. I understand that limitation, but I want to
make clear that I think it sends a bad signal in terms of where this
bill is headed in the long run because, all along, while I applaud the
majority leader and the minority leader for their willingness to give
us an additional week on this bill after the recess, I am worried that
because of the slow progress we are making on these amendments,
particularly on getting an opportunity to vote on amendments--for
example, the one I laid down early on this week--we are going to find
ourselves in for a train wreck the week after the recess, when the
amendments that have been filed will need to be considered. I am afraid
there will be an effort to try to prevent important amendments from
being considered.
Let me give you a little context for my concerns. As we all know,
this bill was negotiated largely behind closed doors by a bipartisan
group of Senators. I have to say that, in many respects, the product we
have before us is better than the bill that passed last year, although
I could not support it in the end because I have amendments I think are
needed to improve it. To give you some context about the need for a
robust debate and the freedom to offer amendments and to consider
various points of view other than those reflected behind those closed
doors, I went back to look at the Judiciary Committee last year, which
considered the original McCain-Kennedy bill. There were 62 amendments
filed in the Judiciary Committee. The present occupant of the chair
knows, as a member of that Committee, it is a very hard-working
Committee that considers a lot of important and contentious issues.
That committee was bypassed through the process by which this bill has
come to the floor this year.
Just an observation. Last year, there were 62 amendments filed in the
Judiciary Committee alone that went through a process that was not
observed this year. So far, by my current count, there have been 107
amendments filed to the present bill. We have had seven--count them--
rollcall votes on amendments so far this week. I don't see any way,
short of an attempt to try to cut off debate and to cut off the
offering of amendments the week we return, we are going to be able to
get through 107 filed amendments.
I think it is important, for a variety of reasons, that we continue
to have a robust debate and the freedom to offer amendments because,
for the reasons I mentioned a moment ago, this product was largely
negotiated behind closed doors by a bipartisan group of Senators. Most
of the Members of the Senate have not had a chance to study this bill
in great detail, until the final legislative text was prepared by
legislative counsel a couple of days ago.
This is an enormously complex issue. The bill has a lot of different
moving parts. We bypassed the committee process. My hope is--and this
is my plea to our leadership--that we continue to see the kind of
expansive opportunities that have been provided so far, with 2 weeks
set aside for the debate and to have an opportunity to offer amendments
and to have votes on those amendments.
I will point out that on the last bill, which ended up being the
Hagel-Martinez compromise, there were 30 rollcall votes, according to
my notes. We have had seven so far on this bill, and here we find
ourselves on Friday and we have one more week scheduled by the majority
leader. I am very concerned that we will not be able to get due
consideration of all of the various points of view, and an opportunity
to freely offer amendments and get rollcall votes on those amendments
that I believe are very important. It is even more important, if it is
possible, in this particular legislation.
As my colleague from Colorado knows, he and I were both present
during many of the negotiations that have led up to this bill, even
though ultimately he agreed to the product, but I could not. That this
is an enormously emotional and contentious issue. I bet Senators have
gotten more phone calls, e-mails, and correspondence about this issue
than virtually anything else that has come before the Senate. It is
extraordinarily important to the democratic process and the legislative
process to allow people to present their points of view.
We are here as 100 people representing 300 million people. We need to
make sure that not only the opinions and points of view of the elites
and people who can hire high-priced lobbyists are considered; we need
to make sure the views of the American people are considered, given an
opportunity for airing and, ultimately, we all respect the process by
which these matters are put to votes, and then we respect the right of
the majority to make the decision and we move forward.
Anything that would even hint of cutting off the opportunity for the
American people to have a full airing of their views, and limiting it
to a handful of amendments that have been advocated by lobbyists and
other people representing the elites in Washington, DC, I think would
be a terrible mistake.
Mr. President, I want to advise my colleague from Colorado of this.
There has been a previous agreement that we would be allowed to offer
two amendments, and that other amendments would not be allowed to be
pending.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment and send amendment No. 1238 to the desk, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
object, there was an agreement reached between the Republican leader
and the majority leader that there would be two amendments offered on
each side today. The Senator from Texas has offered one amendment on
behalf of Senator Allard, and he has offered a second amendment on his
behalf. If I may further comment in responding to some of his
suggestions----
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I reclaim my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. I want to place this in context. The fact is that there
has been a tremendous amount of work that has already been going on in
this Chamber during this last week. I inquire, without losing my place
at the podium, of the parliamentary situation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas has the
floor on his unanimous consent request.
Mr. SALAZAR. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I expected the distinguished Senator from
Colorado to lodge an objection to my amendment.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I did object to a third amendment that
the Senator from Texas wanted to submit.
Mr. CORNYN. Reclaiming my right to the floor, that is my
understanding. I wish to make clear that he has objected, and I wish to
make clear that I was not a party to any agreement that would limit us
to the number of amendments we would offer today, but I respect that. I
offer the amendment to make this point: There are at least 107
amendments that remain to be brought forward and considered. Here we
are on Friday completing the first

[[Page S6930]]

week of what has been set aside as 2 weeks for the consideration of
perhaps the most important domestic issue confronting our country
today. There will be no votes today. Colleagues are returning either
home or off on various travels around the world, and we are here with
the most important domestic issue confronting our country today and
really not proceeding at a pace that would give us any realistic
expectation of getting this matter completed in the way I think this
matter needs to be treated.
I understand and I respect the Senator from Colorado making an
objection to my offering further amendments, but we all can see what is
going on here, and I think it portends some very disconcerting things
when we are not proceeding at a pace we need to in order to actually
get the business of the American people taken care of on this important
issue.
I expect if I offer other amendments that there likewise will be an
objection, so I will not at this time make further offerings of
amendments, but I do have in my hand further amendments--amendment No.
1208, which is an amendment I would offer if possible. I also have
another amendment, amendment No. 1247, which deals with State impact
assistance fees.
One of the reasons people are so upset about the Federal Government's
complete failure to deal with border security and enforce our
immigration laws is that most of the consequences fall on local
taxpayers. In my State of Texas, the Federal Government has issued a
mandate that says no matter who shows up in your schools, your
communities, or in your hospitals, you have to treat them, you have to
provide services to them, but the Federal Government doesn't pay for
it. The Federal Government needs to pay for these unfunded mandates,
and this State impact assistance fee amendment will provide that kind
of relief to local taxpayers.
I understand where we are, and I respect there has been this
agreement between the leaders, and I understand the Senator needs to
object, but I reiterate, we need to get moving. We need to have more
amendments offered. We need to have more votes and less time off
without votes, as we are obviously having today.
I will now return to the amendment that I offered this morning and
that was allowed. Let me return now to my amendment No. 1250 and
explain what this amendment does provide. My hope is that we can, when
we return on Monday--actually, I guess it will be Tuesday, June 5--that
we will have an opportunity for an early vote on this amendment as well
as the pending amendment I have that will prevent rewarding those who
have abused our laws and who have really thumbed their nose at our
legal system, who have been ordered deported and who have simply gone
on the lam, melted into the American landscape and defied the lawful
orders of our courts. These are people who have been ordered deported,
have actually been deported, but then they returned to the United
States in violation of our immigration laws, both of which constitute
felonies. It is my hope that I can get a vote on that amendment, which
has been pending now for several days, soon after we return.
It is my understanding our colleagues are working on some side-by-
side agreement to provide some cover for those who don't vote for my
amendment, but I think we will have to evaluate that when we see it. I
regret the fact that we have not been able to get votes on our
amendments because of objections primarily on the other side.
There is a major flaw in this legislation, and that flaw is that it
will, unless corrected, repeat a fundamental mistake that was made by
Congress when Congress last passed massive legalization of undocumented
immigrants in 1986. The American people do not expect too much of us,
but they do expect that we will not repeat past mistakes.
I remember the definition of ``insanity'' once offered was that you
do the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.
That is the definition of ``insanity.'' This would be a terrible
mistake if we pass this legislation without correcting a major flaw in
the 1986 amnesty bill that was passed by Congress, after having learned
from experience what the consequences of that flaw are.
Under this bill, anyone in the United States in violation of our
immigration laws can come forward and apply for legal status with
impunity. Quite simply, the Department of Homeland Security is
prohibited from using internally all of the information from the Z
applications as well as sharing information with relevant law
enforcement authorities. For example, if an applicant comes forward and
is denied legalization because of some disqualifying feature, this
legislation, as currently written without my amendment, will prevent
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the immigration enforcement
authorities, from using the information from that application to
apprehend that person.
What we learned from the 1986 amnesty was what the New York Times
said--that it created the largest immigration fraud in the history of
the United States. That is the mistake my amendment will attempt to
correct. As we know from the general counsel of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service under President Clinton, the statutory
restrictions on sharing information and providing confidentiality of
the applications of those who apply for amnesty contributed enormously
to that fraud.

The population that will benefit from this legislation should be
treated with no more confidentiality than any other classes of
immigrants. We don't afford this robust confidentiality protection to
other immigrant classes, such as asylees or battered women or those
applying for temporary protected status, so I ask: Why the double
standard?
When an asylum seeker applies for legal status, that asylum seeker
must submit an application and return at a later date for a decision.
If that asylum seeker is denied, he or she is taken into custody or
provided a notice to appear on the spot based on the information
provided by the applicant.
The proponents of this legislation will tell us that without these
guarantees of confidentiality, those who are already in the United
States in violation of our immigration laws will not come forward and
seek legal status. But I must ask: Are we not granting the biggest
benefit that can ever be conferred to an immigrant population; that is,
legal status after they have violated our immigration laws? And to be
clear, we are talking about those who cannot even establish that they
meet the minimum requirements to get this valuable benefit and, even
worse, have flouted our immigration and criminal laws. Why should we
treat individuals who are denied a Z visa with broad privacy
protections by the mere filing of an application for that status? Why
should they be treated differently from everybody else?
The proponents will say they do exempt from confidentiality those
individuals who commit fraud or who are part of some other scheme in
connection with their application. Of course, this is the very least we
should be doing. But this bill does not go nearly far enough to
effectively enforce our immigration laws and protect the American
people from criminals and others who might do us harm. For example, at
page 311 of this bill, in section 604(b) labeled ``Exceptions to
Confidentiality,'' the drafters of the compromise have chosen to
protect aliens who are criminal absconders who have not been removed
from the United States. You may be asking: What is an absconder? Quite
simply, an absconder is someone who has ignored a final court-ordered
deportation and can be prosecuted for a separate felony offense which
is punishable by up to 4 years in prison. So the drafters of this
underlying bill have chosen to protect that class of people who have
not been removed from the United States.
We all know that hundreds of thousands of immigrants come across our
borders each year, many legally, a lot more illegally. But what most
Americans would be shocked to hear is that according to recent
estimates, almost 700,000 of those who have been ordered deported have
simply failed to comply with that court order. How many Americans think
it is OK to ignore the lawful order of one of our courts? How many
Americans, after receiving a subpoena from a court, ignore it and
simply skip the court date?
As my colleagues know, I have offered a separate amendment that would

[[Page S6931]]

categorically bar fugitive aliens from receiving amnesty. I believe
this is an issue of fundamental fairness and the integrity of the rule
of law.
In exchange for the largest legalization program in our Nation's
history, we should be able to say without any doubt that for any person
who applies for and is denied a Z visa on any grounds, we will
authorize Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take that application,
arrest that individual, and to deport them as not qualifying under the
laws of the land. But the bill the Senate is considering would turn a
blind eye to those who would apply for this amnesty and are denied.
This bill would allow them to slide back into the shadows--the very
problem we are trying to solve by this bill.
Ask a random citizen on the street today to answer this simple
question: Someone who has violated our immigration laws comes forward
to apply for legal status under this bill. Because the applicant does
not satisfy one of the criteria for being awarded legal status, the
applicant is denied a Z visa. What happens to that individual under the
present bill if my amendment is not adopted? I don't think we could
find 1 out of 100 who would say something other than: Well, they should
go home. And I suspect the majority would say they should be arrested
on the spot and be deported. Yet the so-called confidentiality
provisions in this bill will prevent law enforcement officials from
using information on the application to locate and remove a significant
population of those who cannot qualify for a Z visa because they are
simply disqualified by law.
This is, in essence, providing an opportunity to significant
categories of individuals whose applications are considered and
rejected to slide back into the shadows and to defy our laws. This is
the very problem we have been told this legislation was designed to
fix. Yet it is designed in reality for failure unless this amendment is
accepted.
The whole point of this exercise, we continue to be told, is to
enhance U.S. security by bringing people out of the shadows and into
the open, to allow people who want to cooperate with the law to do so,
while allowing our law enforcement officials to focus their efforts on
drug traffickers, on criminals, and others who may come here to do us
harm. But this bill would draw those who have entered our country in
violation of our immigration laws or who have overstayed in violation
of those laws to do so and to slide back into the shadows without
allowing the law to be enforced.
I would like to remind my colleagues of our Nation's recent history
with a massive legalization program and the consequences of
prohibitions of Federal agencies on information sharing. As I have
stated, reasonable observers have concluded that the 1986 amnesty was
rife with fraud. There was an article written in the New York Times, I
believe it was 1989, and it called this one of the most massive frauds
in American history.
We know, for example, from the 9/11 Commission staff statements that
Mohammed and Abouhalima, conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing, were granted green cards, or legal permanent resident status,
under the special agricultural worker program, which was an amnesty
program created by the 1986 bill. Under this special agricultural
worker program, a key component of that 1986 amnesty bill, applicants
had to provide evidence that they had worked on perishable crops for at
least 90 days between May 1, 1985, and May 1, 1986. Their residence did
not have to be continuous or unlawful. Nearly 1 million of these
individuals who applied received legal permanent resident status under
this amnesty, twice the number of foreigners normally employed in
agriculture at that time according to the 9/11 Commission and staff.
I would like to make one last significant point about the ill-
conceived confidentiality protections contained in this compromise
bill. Under this bill we are considering, Congress would even prohibit
the use of information from the sworn third-party affidavits that are
one of the documents that can prove eligibility. Let me say that again.
Under this bill, you can get some third party--there is no requirement
of who they might be: a friend, a family member, anybody--to sign an
affidavit attesting that you were lawfully present--or that you were
present, not lawfully but you were present--in the United States as of
a certain date in order to qualify for benefits under this bill.
We already know from well-documented prosecutions of document vendors
and other legalization cases that the type of documents submitted,
especially these kinds of sworn affidavits, without limitation, were
used to further fraud. At the very least, we should not repeat the
mistakes of 1986 by allowing the continued use of sworn affidavits by
those who have already shown their willingness to violate our laws in
order to gain the benefits under this bill.
My amendment takes care of that concern because it will allow those
sort of false documents to be investigated and, where necessary,
prosecuted. Those who engage in cottage industries of massive fraud on
a huge scale can be investigated by our authorities and prosecuted
where warranted. My amendment takes care of that concern.
We know one thing, criminals and terrorists have abused and will
continue to seek ways to abuse our immigration system in order to enter
and remain in our country. I regret to say that the bill we are
debating today fails to give law enforcement the commonsense tools that
would prevent terrorists and others who seek to do us harm from
exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in any massive legalization
program. My colleagues may say there is a confidentiality exception for
national security and for fraud, but to rely solely on these narrow
exceptions is to engage in wishful thinking and, as far as I am
concerned, ignores history and hard experience and the terrorist and
criminal threats that we face.
Why would we leave any of this to chance? Why would we turn a blind
eye to the type of abuses that we have seen happen in the past and risk
it happening again in this bill? I submit that any rejected application
not only will provide valuable information to assist in deporting a
person that is not entitled under our own laws to the benefits under
this bill but may provide law enforcement with a valuable lead that
they were previously unaware of, a lead that could--and this is not too
much of a stretch--potentially save lives and, at the very least,
improve public safety.
Failure to allow law enforcement to connect the dots is a deadly
mistake. I have heard many of my colleagues promise never would that
happen again. So I urge those who are truly serious about their
commitment to make sure the mistakes of the past don't occur again, and
that we don't expose the American people to an unnecessary risk and
ultimately lose their confidence by enacting a law that cannot be
enforced. If we do that, I think we will not have done our job. So I
urge all of us who are serious about this commitment to support my
amendment to make this crucial improvement to this legislation.
Mr. President, I have to make one correction. Apparently, affidavits
are not allowed from relatives but are from nonrelatives. So you can't
get your brother-in-law, I guess, to sign an affidavit saying when you
were in the United States, but you can get a stranger on the street or
someone else to sign an affidavit saying, yes, John Cornyn was present
in the United States as of this date. What we want to do is bring a
little sunshine to this process to allow our law enforcement officials
to do what they have sworn to do, and which they do so nobly and so
valiantly day in and day out, and that is investigate crime, bring
those who break our laws to justice, to root out fraud, and to make
sure our laws do work.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cornyn for his tireless
effort and his great knowledge of the complexities of the issues
involved in any comprehensive immigration reform. I know he has worked
hard to try to craft a comprehensive bill but one that will actually
work. That is the question.
I know the Senator has developed great concerns about that and has
offered a number of amendments, some

[[Page S6932]]

excellent law enforcement amendments, drawn, I know, from his
experience as a former attorney general in Texas and a member of the
supreme court in Texas. I believe, as a former Federal prosecutor,
those amendments are essential to having a successful immigration
program.
I would like to hear why it is that now 3 days into this bill he has
not been able to get a vote on those amendments and about other
amendments that he has offered this morning, whether he has been
successful in even calling them up for consideration.
Mr. CORNYN. Well, Mr. President, I appreciate the question from the
distinguished Senator from Alabama, who was a former U.S. attorney,
former attorney general of his State, as the occupant of the chair was
of his State, as was, as a matter of fact, Senator Salazar. It seems as
if we have a former attorneys general convention right here on the
floor of the Senate, all of us engaged in law enforcement actions most
of our professional lives.
To answer the Senator's question, I am simply at a loss to understand
why, on the single most important domestic issue facing our country
today--our broken borders and our immigration system. This is designed
to fail because of these barriers of information sharing that have been
erected and because of the confidentiality provisions that have been
slapped on affidavits and other evidence of fraud that might help us
root out and investigate wrongdoers and bring them to justice. I think
this is the main reason people are so profoundly skeptical of what we
are doing today.

I don't think any of us should be under any illusion that if we erect
this nice, pretty superstructure that we talk about, that the elements
of the bill that are meritorious--things such as triggers, things such
as enhanced border security, effective worksite verification--if we
undermine it, if we simply cut the legs out from under the ability of
law enforcement officials to enforce this law in a way that will see it
collapse again, like the 1986 amnesty bill did, and we don't learn from
that hard experience and improve this bill and eliminate those errors
and those flaws, I think we will have failed the essential purpose for
which we were sent here--to represent the American people, to see that
the laws are respected, to see that law and order are reestablished.
I really do believe the reason people are so upset about this issue
is because they see rampant lawlessness and disregard for the law in
our immigration system. They recognize that in a post-9/11 world that
our broken borders can allow economic migrants to come across.
We all understand why people want to come to America. It is the same
reason they always have: they want a better life. We understand that.
But we have to know who is coming into our country and the reasons they
come here. We have offered generous temporary worker programs under
this bill so they could come legally, so they could be screened, so law
enforcement could focus on the criminals, potential terrorists, and
others who want to do us harm. But why in the world, I would ask my
colleagues, would we want to leave these flaws in the bill which
prohibit our law enforcement officials from doing their job, from
investigating and rooting out fraud and criminality and bringing
wrongdoers to justice?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another
question?
Mr. CORNYN. I will.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would just ask this question, through the Chair. Is
it similar to the bill last year? Did they not improve the language
that basically said if you file a false document for a benefit under
this bill, that is really not subject to being examined and
investigated and prosecuted?
If an American filed a false claim for hurricane relief or any
government benefit, that is a violation of title XVIII, section 1001. I
have prosecuted it many times. But persons who are here illegally,
noncitizens, can file false statements and then there is a mechanism
that blocks that from being actually investigated and perhaps
prosecuted?
Mr. CORNYN. I would answer the distinguished Senator by saying there
have been some modest steps in improving the flaws in last year's bill.
As we have discussed privately and on the Senate floor, I think we
ought to give some credit where credit is due to see this bill
strengthened over the flawed bill that passed the Senate last year.
But to answer his question, there are still confidentiality
provisions in this bill which would allow fraud to go undetected,
uninvestigated, and not prosecuted. I don't know why in the world we
would possibly stand silently and allow that to happen. I am not going
to, and that is the reason I have offered this amendment.
I see on the Senate floor the other distinguished Senator from
Colorado, my friend Mr. Allard, who has also offered other important
legislation to allow information sharing between law enforcement
personnel. It was as a result of the Swift meatpacking plant raids that
Senator Allard held meetings on, which I attended, that we learned the
very tool that our Federal Government has given employers to confirm
eligibility to work is flawed, and Social Security information cannot
be shared with the Department of Homeland Security.
So we find people, such as the Swift meatpacking plant operators,
using the Basic Pilot to check whether a person shows up and says: My
name is John Cornyn, and here is John Cornyn's Social Security number.
They run it through Basic Pilot. It says, yes, that is John Cornyn's
Social Security number, but the fact is, it is Ken Salazar using John
Cornyn's Social Security number, or somebody else, and it doesn't root
out that kind of fraud.
What we need to do is make sure all manner of fraud and illegality
are capable of being fully investigated, fully prosecuted, where
warranted, and that our laws are enforced. That is the flaw that my
amendment seeks to correct. And I continue to believe other amendments
that have so far not been allowed to be called up, some 107 that have
been filed, when we actually had votes on 30 amendments in last year's
bill, and we have only had 7 so far, that we are really not going at
the kind of pace at which I would hope we would proceed to be able to
amend and improve this bill in a way that we could be proud of and that
we would know would actually work.
That, to me, is one of the key pillars upon which this legislation
ought to be built: Will it work? Can it be enforced? If it can't, we
will have failed.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my good
friend from Texas. I wish to respond to the notion that this Chamber is
not taking sufficient time in order to consider the issue of
immigration and immigration reform. We have, indeed, been on a very
long journey to try to grapple with this issue which, at the base of
it, is the fundamental question of national security.
It was last year, for most of the month of May, where this Senate
debated a comprehensive immigration reform package. It was an
immigration reform package that had gone through the Senate Judiciary
Committee and was amended multiple times on the floor of the Senate.
Now, for the last many months, perhaps as many as 4 to 5 months, there
have been a group of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, working with
Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez and President Bush to try to
come up with a comprehensive immigration reform package, which is now
the package that is before this Chamber.
I submit, in response to my good friend from Texas, that there has
been ample opportunity for us to deal with the issue of immigration
reform and to come up with a system that is, in fact, workable.
On this specific issue, what we have done during this past week is--
there have been 23 amendments that have been offered. There have been
13 of those amendments that have been disposed of--7 of those have been
disposed of with rollcall votes, 6 of them with voice votes. There were
10 amendments pending as of yesterday; there will be 4 more amendments
pending as of today.
At the request of many Republican colleagues, Senator Reid agreed it
was important for us to take an additional week to be able to fully
debate this very complicated and very difficult and very emotional
issue on how we move forward with immigration reform. We did not get to
a conclusion of this debate this week because Senator Reid

[[Page S6933]]

thought it important to take another week to fully consider the
legislation before us.
Indeed, during the week that Members of the Senate are working back
in their districts or doing what they may be doing during this next
week, it is going to be another opportunity for Members of the Senate
to continue to study the provisions of this legislation. But this
legislation was not pulled out of the darkness one day and placed on
the floor of the Senate. This legislation was crafted with significant
input from both Republican and Democratic Senators and with the
guidance of Secretary Chertoff. While it may not be perfect, and while
the efforts on the floor of the Senate this week and the week after we
return from the Memorial Day break will improve upon the bill, there
has been a huge amount of energy that has gone into creating an
immigration reform package that will, in fact, work.
At the end of the day, I remind all our colleagues and those who are
watching, what is at stake is moving from a system of a broken border
and lawlessness that relates to immigration in this country to a system
that works. We need to find a solution that will fix those broken
borders. We need to find solutions that will, in fact, make sure the
laws of the Nation on immigration are enforced.
For 20 years, this country has looked the other way. We are a Nation
of laws. We ought to be enforcing the laws as this legislation moves
forward, making sure we are going to have the laws and the capacity to
enforce those laws in our interior, and we need to have a realistic
solution to deal with the 12 million undocumented workers here in
America. To those who would be part of the ``round them up and deport
them'' crowd, I remind them that is an unrealistic solution. As the
President of the United States said during the last week: To round up
12 million people, to put them on buses and railroads and whatever
other way one would want to round up those 12 million people and send
them elsewhere is not a realistic solution.
This proposal that is now before the Senate, which was carefully
crafted with significant input from the administration and the
leadership of the President, is a good way for us to move forward. I
hope, as we go on into the week after the Memorial Day work period, at
that point in time there will be ample opportunity to have a robust and
orderly debate on amendments that my colleagues will bring forth to try
to further improve the bill.

Amendment No. 1183 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be laid
aside, that the Senate turn to consideration of an amendment by Senator
Clinton, amendment No. 1183.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], for Mrs. Clinton,
for herself, Mr. Hagel and Mr. Menendez, proposes an
amendment numbered 1183 to amendment No. 1150.

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To reclassify the spouses and minor children of lawful
permanent residents as immediate relatives)

On page 238, line 13, strike ``567,000'' and insert
``480,000''.
On page 238, line 19, strike ``127,000'' and insert
``40,000''.
On page 247, line 1, insert ``or the child or spouse of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence'' after
``United States''.
On page 247, line 5, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 247, line 6, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 247, line 6, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 247, line 7, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 247, line 8, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 247, line 9, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 247, line 15, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 247, line 24, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 248, strike lines 2 through 11.
On page 248, line 13, strike the first ``(3)'' and insert
``(2)''.
On page 249, line 1, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
On page 250, between lines 42 and 43, insert the following:
(5) Rules for determining whether certain aliens are
immediate relatives.--Section 201(f) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(f)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3),'' and inserting
``paragraph (2),''; and
(ii) by striking ``(b)(2)(A)(i)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(D) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking
``(b)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)''.
(6) Numerical limitation to any single foreign state.--
Section 202 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1152) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (4); and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4).
(7) Allocation of immigration visas.--Section 203(h) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(h)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d)'' and inserting ``subsection
(d)'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``becomes available
for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date
on which an immigrant visa number became available for the
alien's parent)'', and inserting ``became available for the
alien's parent,''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``applicable'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``The petition'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``The petition
described in this paragraph is a petition filed under section
204 for classification of the alien parent under subsection
(a) or (b).''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``subsections (a)(2)(A)
and (d)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(8) Procedure for granting immigrant status.--Section 204
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) in clause (iii)--

(aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``citizen'' each place that term appears; and
(bb) in subclause (II)(aa)(CC)(bbb), by inserting ``or
legal permanent resident'' after ``citizenship'';

(II) in clause (iv)--

(aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``citizen'' each place that term appears; and
(bb) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``citizenship'';

(III) in clause (v)(I), by inserting ``or legal permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''; and
(IV) in clause (vi)--

(aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident status''
after ``renunciation of citizenship''; and
(bb) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``abuser's citizenship'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B);
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (J) as
subparagraphs (B) through (I), respectively;
(iv) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated, by striking
``subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii)'' and
inserting ``clause (iii) or (iv) of subparagraph (A)''; and
(v) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated--

(I) by striking ``or clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph
(B)''; and
(II) by striking ``under subparagraphs (C) and (D)'' and
inserting ``under subparagraphs (B) and (C)'';

(B) by striking subsection (a)(2);
(C) in subsection (h), by striking ``or a petition filed
under subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii)''; and
(D) in subsection (j), by striking ``subsection (a)(1)(D)''
and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(C)''.

Amendment No. 1202 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I now ask the pending amendment be set
aside and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the amendment of
Senator Obama, amendment No. 1202.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar], for Mr. Obama, for
himself and Mr. Menendez, proposes amendment numbered 1202 to
amendment No. 1150.

Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a date on which the authority of the section
relating to the increasing of American competitiveness through a merit-
based evaluation system for immigrants shall be terminated)

At the end of title V, insert the following:

SEC. 509. TERMINATION.

(a) In General.--The amendments described in subsection (b)
shall be effective

[[Page S6934]]

during the 5-year period ending on September 30 of the fifth
fiscal year following the fiscal year in which this Act is
enacted.
(b) Provisions.--The amendments described in this
subsection are the following:
(1) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) of
section 501.
(2) The amendments made by subsections (b), (c), and (e) of
section 502.
(3) The amendments made by subsections (a), (b), (c), (d),
and (g) of section 503.
(4) The amendments made by subsection (a) of section 504.
(c) Worldwide Level of Employment-Based Immigrants.--
(1) Temporary supplemental allocation.--Section 201(d) (8
U.S.C. 1151(d)) is amended by adding at the end the follows
new paragraphs:
``(3) Temporary supplemental allocation.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1) and (2), there shall be a temporary
supplemental allocation of visas as follows:
``(A) For the first 5 fiscal years in which aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) are eligible for an
immigrant visa, the number calculated pursuant to section
503(f)(2) of the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
``(B) In the sixth fiscal year in which aliens described in
section 101(a)(15)(Z) are eligible for an immigrant visa, the
number calculated pursuant to section 503(f)(3) of Secure
Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of
2007.
``(C) Starting in the seventh fiscal year in which aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) are eligible for an
immigrant visa, the number equal to the number of aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) who became aliens admitted
for permanent residence based on the merit-based evaluation
system in the prior fiscal year until no further aliens
described in section 101(a)(15)(Z) adjust status.
``(4) Termination of temporary supplemental allocation.--
The temporary supplemental allocation of visas described in
paragraph (3) shall terminate when the number of visas
calculated pursuant to paragraph (3)(C) is zero.
``(5) Limitation.--The temporary supplemental visas
described in paragraph (3) shall not be awarded to any
individual other than an individual described in section
101(a)(15)(Z).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective on October 1 of the sixth fiscal year
following the fiscal year in which this Act is enacted.

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I see my colleague and friend from
Colorado, Senator Allard, on the floor to speak to his amendment.
I yield the floor to Senator Allard.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am certainly going to yield to Senator
Allard, if I may make a brief--about 1-minute--response to my friend,
Senator Salazar.
I have in my hand the bill that was actually laid down by the
majority leader and others. It is 789 pages. This is not actually the
bill we are on. As you know, and as my colleagues know, there has been
a substitute bill that was not put in final legislative language until
Tuesday. Those who did not participate in the closed-door meetings that
produced what has been sometimes called the ``grand bargain''--while I
have been clear to give them credit where credit is due--I think they
would appreciate the fact that not everybody has had access to the same
information. Certainly not all Members of the Senate and our staffs
have had access to the legislative text we are actually voting on and
to which we are actually offering amendments.
As the Senator from Colorado acknowledged, we all know how
complicated this subject is. It is enormously detailed. We are doing
our best to try to keep up. My hope is we can continue to work together
to try to work our way through this. I think that is the spirit in
which we are all trying to work.
Nobody wants to blow this up. We all want to find a solution. We have
some differences on what those solutions might be, but this is where
those differences are debated, where the process allows amendments,
suggested changes and improvements to be offered, and then in the end
we will vote. But I wished to express my concerns that we be given the
opportunity to do a good, conscientious job on behalf of our
constituents, on behalf of the American people, in what I believe is
the single most important domestic issue confronting our country today.
That is the sum and substance of my part.
I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado,
Senator Allard.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have worked on
the compromise committee. Senator Cornyn from Texas has done yeoman's
work on this issue of immigration. He has a good understanding of the
bill. I appreciate it. My colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, has
also worked hard on this particular piece of legislation.
I wish to say before Senator Cornyn leaves the floor, how much I
appreciate his efforts and appreciate the fact that he did put forward,
this morning, my amendment dealing with the supplemental schedule for
Zs, that is the Z visas, because I think this is an important issue to
debate. I appreciate him doing it for me on my behalf.
I am very disappointed the leadership has limited us to only two
amendments that we can call up today. I have a total of about five that
I am working on. I have four ready to be called up. I was not a member
of the compromise committee. I know Senator Cornyn is a very honorable
Senator. Whenever I inquired of him as to what was going on in the
conference committee, the bipartisan committee, he didn't believe he
could share that information with me because he believed he was working
within the committee.
The vast majority of us are looking at some of these issues for the
first time. Some of them are issues that have been coming up before the
Senate from the previous debate and they are old hat. But the fact is,
this is a new bill. In my office on Saturday morning, I got a rough
draft with things penciled in, in the margins. That is what comes out
of the committee. Then, as mentioned, on Monday night the substitute
amendment was finally filed in the Senate. It wasn't until Tuesday that
we got a final print of the bill. I don't know how many pages are in
the final bill--I think it would be close to 1,000 pages in standard
format. I do not believe I have had an adequate opportunity to have
input. I was assured by the leadership that there is going to be plenty
of opportunity for amendments--don't worry. But here we are on Friday
and we are limited to two that we can call up.
I have four here at the desk that I have filed, but I think the
people need to understand, because you file them doesn't mean you get
to bring them up and have a vote on them. They have to be made pending.
That is what Senator Cornyn has done to help me out on one of my
amendments. I thank him for that effort.
First, let me comment a little bit about the general direction of
this legislation. In current law we have what we call chain migration.
What happens with chain migration is you come into the United States,
and once you become legally here in the United States, that allows
members of your extended family to follow you in.
We are moving more toward a merit-based system, which is a direction
in which we need to move. We cannot absolutely go all merit based, but
I do think it is moving us in the right direction because we do have
real needs out there. We need to identify those needs in the workplace.
If we need to fill those with immigrants, we need to give business an
opportunity to do that. On the other hand, probably more important than
anything is we must make sure we have accountability in the system so
we know who is coming into the country and for what purpose; that is,
they want to have jobs or they want to be Americans. We don't want
people coming into this country because they are terrorists and they
want to destroy our society. We don't want people coming into this
country because they are part of a drug cartel or they are smuggling
weapons--in or out. We do need to secure our borders. I think that is
the primary thing we need to accomplish. There are provisions in this
bill that make me believe our borders will be more secure than as a
result of the previous legislation--certainly more secure than what we
are seeing today on our borders.
I do, however, have a number of concerns with the bill. To address
one of those concerns, I introduced amendment No. 1189, which is my
amendment that Senator Cornyn called up, and that refers to the
supplemental schedule for Zs. This section, in my point of view, is a
great inequity in the bill because it rewards lawbreakers over law
abiders.

Ironically, this inequity is in the same section of the bill that
rewards would-be immigrants based on merit. The only thing that
breaking the law should merit, in my view, is jail time.

[[Page S6935]]

To be clear, I strongly support curbing chain migration and moving
our system to one based on merit. However, I believe all applicants
under the merit-based system should be on a level playing field.
By now, most of us are familiar with the bill's merit-based system
that awards points to immigrants based on criteria such as employment,
education, and knowledge of English.
What many may not know is the enormous advantage the bill's point
system gives to people who have violated our immigration laws relative
to people who are seeking to enter this country legally. I am referring
to the so-called supplemental schedule for Zs. This separate schedule
awards up to 50 bonus points, points that are not available to people
who have never broken our immigration laws, to holders of Z visas
seeking permanent status.
Holders of Z visas are, by definition, lawbreakers. In fact, this
bill specifically requires that an alien prove he or she broke the law
in order to even be eligible for the Z visas. In effect, this
supplemental schedule rewards people who entered this country
illegally. Worse yet, it disadvantages other qualified people who seek
to enter this country legally.
The bill's stated purpose of adopting a merit-based system is that
the United States benefits from a workforce that has diverse skills,
experience, and training. I happen to agree. I have stated that before.
I am simply not convinced that a history of breaking the law
contributes to this goal more than education and experience. My
amendment simply strikes the special schedule that makes people who
have violated our immigration laws eligible for points that others are
not eligible for. I strike that provision.
I just strike that provision so it puts everyone on a level playing
field. Visa holders would, however, still be eligible, up to their 100
points we provided in there under the regular schedule--the exact same
number as anybody else.
We should not reward those who have broken the law, and we certainly
should not punish those who have abided by the law. I urge my
colleagues to support that amendment when it comes up for a vote.
Now, I have other amendments I very much would like to put forth. I
understand that if I were to call them up at this particular point in
time, I would put my colleague from Colorado in a terrible position,
that he would have to object to my amendment when I ask unanimous
consent to call it up. I don't want to do that. But what I do want to
do is I want to talk about these particular amendments for a moment.
Even though they have been introduced, I am not going to have an
opportunity to call them up. I think these amendments are important
provisions that would add to the bill in a positive way.
One amendment I have is number 1187. Obviously I am not going to have
a chance to call it up today. This particular amendment addresses the
issue of identity theft and tries to improve the legislation at hand by
protecting the identity of hard-working Americans, which is of the
utmost importance to me.
By way of background, this identity theft issue was called to my
attention when we had some identity thefts that were pretty rampant in
northern Colorado, close to where I live in Greeley, and I have
discovered it is a rampant problem throughout the country.
Now, again, I commend the drafters of the bill for including my
proposal to allow for information sharing between the Social Security
Administration and the Department of Homeland Security in the current
bill. I had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, Secretary Chertoff, I had an opportunity to meet with the
Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Gutierrez, and I had an opportunity to
meet with my colleagues, including my colleague from Colorado, on this
most important issue. I think that including that provision in there
where we have now information sharing between Social Security and
Homeland Security in the bill is going to be very helpful for us to
identify identity theft. If anything else, the real victims in this are
people who get their ID stolen, and it is a price they pay for the rest
of their lives. It tracks with them all the way until they are
receiving their Social Security benefits. So it was a critical first
step to get this provision in the bill so that we can address the issue
of identity theft and help many innocent victims.
Contributing to the problem is the fact that under current law,
Government agencies are prevented from sharing information with other
Government agencies. After 9/11, one of our stated purposes was to
break down the walls between the various agencies. Well, here we are.
We find there is one that is remaining, between Social Security and
Homeland Security. The bill addresses this issue. Going forward, when
we find two names on the same Social Security number, Social Security
can contact Homeland Security and say: Look, this is a number which has
come to us, and we suspect fraud because we have two names on the same
number. Then when the employer now calls in to check with Homeland
Security about a Social Security number, they can say: Well, we have
problems with this particular number. We think this could be an illegal
immigrant, and we think you need to further check it out, and we will
help you check it out.
Now, this is sort of the program which was in place when we had the
raids on Swift & Company in Greeley, CO. But I will talk a little bit
more about that later.
According to the Federal Trade Commission 2006 database, victims'
identification has been misused to obtain credit cards, bank accounts,
loans, and a long list of other things, including employment fraud. The
current national average of employment fraud is 14 percent of all
reported identity theft occurrences. Nationally, my home State of
Colorado ranks sixth in overall identity theft. Seventeen percent of
reported cases involve employment fraud, by the way. Massachusetts
ranks 22nd, Pennsylvania 19th, and the FTC designated Arizona as the
No. 1 State for identity theft. An estimated 39 percent--almost 40--of
those reports involve employment fraud.
That is why it is very important that we address this problem which
came up when we had the raid on Swift & Company because what was
happening with Swift & Company is they were working with Homeland
Security to do what they call a basic pilot. So whenever anybody came
in to Swift & Company and asked for a job, their employment application
information was sent to Homeland Security. Homeland Security reviewed
it and said: That is fine, go ahead and hire them, Swift & Company.
Then Swift & Company goes and hires them. Then those very same people
they were supposed to have cleared as legal immigrants, they arrested
them for being here illegally. Now, if the Federal agencies cannot
enforce our immigration laws, how can we expect the employers to comply
with the current law? That is why my proposal is so very important. It
is important to put sound measures in place now to uncover this
identity theft and to prevent further damage to these innocent victims.
Getting back to my amendment at issue today, Amendment 1187--I have
not called it up, just introduced it, and I am not sure I am going to
get a vote on it. It adds to the list of credentials needed to obtain a
Z visa. It is an additive to what is already in this bill.
The underlying bill requires applicants for Z visas to submit a
variety of personal information, such as their name and date of birth.
My amendment will add one more piece of information that will offer
peace of mind to all who have fallen victim to identify theft. It
requires the Z visa applicant to disclose all past names and Social
Security numbers they have used in their work in the United States.

This will create a documented record of compromised identities.
Failure to provide this information will jeopardize the applicant's
ability to obtain a Z visa. My amendment would permit Government
agencies to share information with other agencies. These agencies may
then notify the rightful assignee, alerting the victim that their
identity was compromised, allowing the victim to repair their standing
with Government agencies and finance and credit, and finally returning
a sense of personal security and integrity.
So I think it is important that we address this issue. We must do
everything possible to end identity theft. I look

[[Page S6936]]

forward to working with my colleagues. I hope I will have an
opportunity to call up this amendment so we can vote on it, so we can
make it a part of this particular bill, because it is an important
aspect of identity theft that is simply not addressed in the bill. I
think it adds to what we are trying to do in the bill. I am
disappointed that I am not going to be able to move forward on this.

Amendment No. 1188

Now, Mr. President, I also have another amendment, 1188. Again, that
has been introduced. This is an amendment which I have put at the desk
which would help prevent further accrual of Social Security benefits by
unauthorized workers. Currently, the Social Security Administration
does not have real-time information relating to the eligibility of an
alien to engage in employment in the United States. Consequently,
someone working in the United States on an expired visa continues to
accrue Social Security benefits for their unauthorized work.
My amendment, 1188, would require the Secretary of Homeland Security
to notify the Commissioner of Social Security when he or she grants,
renews, or revokes authority to engage in employment. It then prohibits
the Social Security Administration from counting work during that time
if an individual, if not a citizen or a national, is unauthorized to
work in the United States.
In summary, this amendment simply facilitates the sharing of existing
information among Government agencies, again to prevent fraud. It is
forward-looking in nature. It does not look back. It does nothing to
upset the bill's delicate balance. It is simply a better way of doing
things moving forward.
So those are some of the issues I have concern about. I am
disappointed again that we have put a limit on amendments. They are
meaningful amendments and would add to what would be viewed, I think by
most Members of the Senate, as positive in nature in trying to help
secure this country's borders, to help protect individuals from
identity theft and break down the barriers we have or the firewalls we
have between various agencies.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I will take a look at the amendment my
colleague from Colorado has pending, amendment No. 1189.
I do wish to say this about my colleague from Colorado: He has been a
champion for agriculture all his life. He is a fifth-generation
Coloradan. He understands what it is like out in the country, coming
from a place in Jackson County, Walden, CO, for now five generations.
A concern I have with his amendment, and I will take a further look
at it, is that it seems to strike at the heart of the AgJOBS provision
of this legislation. The AgJOBS provision of this legislation is an
essential part of the agreement here that we need to move forward and
create a system that will provide the labor we need to work on our
farms and ranches across America.
In my own State of Colorado, we have approximately 31,000 farms that
encompass more than 31 million acres. According to the agribusiness
statistics we have, they contribute over $16 billion to the State's
economy. We need to make sure we have the labor that is necessary to
work out in those fields so that we do not have the destruction we have
seen in Colorado and California and in almost every State that is an
agriculturally dependent State.
So one of the concerns I have, and I will take a further look at my
colleague's amendment, 1189, but I do voice a preliminary concern, and
I do wish to make sure that at the end of the day, when we have
comprehensive immigration reform adopted here in this country, that the
provisions of AgJOBS--we have had as many as 67 cosponsors on that
legislation--that AgJOBS in fact does remain a part of this
legislation. That is legislation which has been worked on for a very
long time in a bipartisan fashion, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein as
well as Senator Larry Craig. It is a good piece of legislation that we
need to deal with in order to make sure we have the labor requirements
met for farmers and ranchers across America.
Mr. President, I know our colleague from Alabama is waiting to speak,
and then in the wings I see waiting Senator McCain.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to just take a moment, and I see
my colleague, Senator McCain, is here and prepared to speak, and I will
be pleased to yield the floor and allow him an opportunity to speak.
One of the problems we have with this legislation is we have gotten
out of sync about our normal process on how legislation becomes law,
how it should become law, what should be a part of it, particularly
when it is such a massively important, broad, comprehensive bill that
purports to be moving through the Senate.
My colleague used a phrase that has been used frequently, that he was
concerned about perhaps this amendment because it might affect an
essential part of the agreement. Who made an agreement? I have not made
an agreement. The American people haven't been in on an agreement. We
have not gone through the normal process of moving an immigration bill
through committee to the floor with hearings. We had some hearings last
year and produced a quite different bill from the one that is on the
floor today. This one was cooked up by a hard-working, good group of
Senators who thought they could just speak for everybody--self-
appointed, I suppose.
Let me display this chart. When this bill was announced, it was said:
This is democracy in action. This is what you learn in ninth grade
civics. This is good business. But how about our old buddy Mr. Bill who
wants to become a law. You have heard him say it. Old Bill has a bunch
of holes in him. He has a lot of loopholes in him. I am going to talk
about that in a few minutes.
Senator Specter, former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, ranking
Republican on the committee, part of this effort that worked hard to
try to create a bill they thought would be effective, said the other
day that in retrospect, it would have been better had it gone to
committee. Old Bill, ask him how a bill becomes law. He says: It is an
idea somewhere. Then it gets written up. Then it goes to the floor.
Then it goes to committee. The committee has hearings on it and calls
witnesses and considers all the details and ramifications and lets the
American people know what occurred.
The way this bill purports to become law is a group of Senators got
together. I affectionately call them ``masters of the universe.'' They
got together and wrote up a historic piece of legislation that, if
placed in normal bill language, would probably push 1,000 pages,
probably the longest piece of legislation ever brought here. It was not
sent to committee. It was filed at the desk, and the majority leader,
Senator Reid, called it up without any committee hearing. They had the
old bill on the floor. They filed cloture this Monday on the old bill.
Then Monday night, for the first time of record, they plopped down this
historic and incredibly complex, long piece of legislation. It has a
lot of problems with it. It should not become law. That is what this is
all about.
Now we have gone a week, and we haven't had many amendments voted on.
Thirteen is about all we have voted on by voice, unanimous consent, and
roll call. Senator Cornyn, who has been engaged in this deeply and
worked hard on it, former attorney general, Supreme Court Justice of
Texas, offered some amendments this morning. They were objected to. I
was told last night if I put up some amendments to the other side, they
would evaluate them, and we would be able to call up one of those
amendments this morning. In truth, both have been objected to. I am not
able to offer a new amendment this morning. So the first week is gone.
In fact, Senator Harry Reid, our esteemed Democratic leader, a person I
like and enjoy working with, wanted to complete the bill this week and
had it set up to try to complete the bill this week. There was so much
push back and objection, he said: We will carry it over for another
week.
I don't believe 1 more week is nearly enough for this legislation,
frankly. We need to spend a lot more time on it. I can feel the train
moving. There is a method in the way the majority is handling
amendments; that is, you can

[[Page S6937]]

only bring up one amendment at a time. It has to be approved by the
other side before you can call it up. If you can't call it up, it
ceases to be an amendment that can be voted on postcloture, even if it
is germane. So the result is, we could proceed with this process in a
way that does not allow it to be improved in a significant way.
I am worried about my friend, Mr. Bill. I don't believe his teachers
back there in the civics class would be pleased with how he has been
bumped around. They would not be pleased that he had not gone through
the normal process. I will point out some of the loopholes in poor, old
Mr. Bill, as we go along today. Those loopholes will indicate this bill
should not be passed in its present form.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from
Alabama, because I know he has a great deal more to say about the
pending legislation this morning. I appreciate his allowing me a few
minutes to discuss my view. I thank him for his courtesy.
I thank my friend from Colorado, Senator Salazar, for his leadership,
for his involvement and his integrity. What a great honor it has been
for me to work with him on this and a number of other issues over
several years. I thank him.
Immigration reform is long overdue. I am proud to support this
historic overhaul of our immigration system. This bill represents
weeks, months and, in some cases, years of work by the proponents of
this bill. The President has shown tremendous leadership on this issue
and has dedicated countless hours to the process. While I may not be in
agreement--and most of us are not in agreement--with each and every
provision of the bill, it offers a good starting point for debate and a
good framework. The proponents of this bill have come together to try
to fix one of the most serious issues facing our country. We have put
partisan politics aside in order to forge a consensual proposal to
allow us to start a full floor debate on immigration reform. Others
need to do the same.
Those of us from border States witness every day the impact illegal
immigration is having on our friends and neighbors, our county and city
services, our economy, and our environment. We deal with the
degradation of our lands and the demands imposed on our hospitals and
other public resources. However, I have learned over the last several
years this is not only a border State problem; this is a national
problem. It affects the dairy farmers in Vermont and the cattlemen in
Colorado. It also affects the poultry processors in Georgia, the
construction worker in Nevada, and the housewife in Maine. Our current
system doesn't protect us from people who want to harm us. It doesn't
meet the needs of our economy, and it leaves too many people vulnerable
to exploitation and abuse.

Throughout this debate, we will be reminded that immigration is a
national security issue, and it is. It is also a matter of life and
death. We have hundreds of people trying to cross our borders every
day, an estimated 12 million people living in the shadows of our
country. While we believe the majority are hard-working people
contributing to our economy and society, we can also assume there are
some people who want to do us harm hiding among the millions who have
come here only in search of better lives for themselves and their
families. We need new policies that will allow us to concentrate our
resources on finding those who have come here for purposes more
dangerous than finding a job.
Last year the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill, but it
never even got to conference. This year we realized we had to take a
different approach if we wanted to enact real reforms. New ideas and
concepts were incorporated into the bill that helped to enhance the
comprehensive nature of the bill and ensure the strongest tools were in
place to enforce our laws and secure our border. First and foremost
among our priorities was to ensure this bill included strong border
security and enforcement provisions. We need to ensure that the
Department of Homeland Security has the resources it needs to secure
our borders to the greatest extent possible. These include manpower,
vehicles, and detention facilities for those apprehended. But we also
need to take a 21st century approach to this 21st century problem. We
need to create virtual barriers as well through the use of unmanned
aerial systems, ground sensors, cameras, vehicle barriers, advanced
communications systems, and the most up-to-date security technologies
available.
This legislation mandates that before we can move forward with a
program to address the undocumented workers currently in the United
States or future workers wishing to enter, we must meet certain
enforcement and security benchmarks that will let everyone know we are
enforcing our laws and that we are not going to repeat the 1986
amnesty. These triggers include the hiring of 20,000 Border Patrol
agents, the construction of 300 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles
of fencing, the establishment of 105 ground-based radar and camera
towers along the southern border, and the deployment of 4 unmanned
aerial vehicles and supporting systems. It also includes the end of
catch and release, the ability to detain up to 31,500 aliens per day on
an annual basis, the use of secure and effective identification tools
to prevent unauthorized workers, and the receiving, processing, and
adjudication of applications for the undocumented workers applying for
legal status.
Every one of these items must be in place and fully funded before a
single temporary worker enters our country or a single undocumented
immigrant receives a permanent legal status in the United States. I
believe these requirements are a substantial improvement over previous
measures. Not only will this legislation finally accomplish the
extraordinary goal of securing our borders, it will also greatly
improve interior enforcement and put employers on notice that the
practice of hiring illegal workers simply will not be tolerated.
Business as usual is no longer acceptable, and neither is a de facto
amnesty. This legislation would put in place an effective and practical
employment verification system to replace the outdated I-9 system that
all employers use. In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that
employers are still recording important employment eligibility
information with a pen and pad. We need real-time answers that will
tell employers if the person sitting in front of them is not only
eligible to work here but the person they actually claim to be.
Employers will no longer be put in a position of judging documents
presented to them at face value.
The employment verification system in this bill will allow employers
to electronically verify identity and work eligibility through both DHS
and the Social Security Administration, while also protecting the
personal information of all U.S. workers. If we cannot adequately
enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, employers will be able to
continue to employ undocumented workers. That is not a scenario we will
allow under this legislation.
We need the ability to have additional legal workers in this country.
There are certain jobs Americans are simply not willing to do. For
example, today in California, fruit is rotting on the vine and lettuce
is dying in the fields, because farmers can't find workers to harvest
their crops. At the same time resorts in my own State of Arizona can't
open to capacity, because there aren't enough workers to clean the
rooms. Restaurants are locking their doors because there is no one to
serve the food or clear the dishes. We are facing a situation whereby
the U.S. population does not provide the workers that businesses
desperately need. Yet the demand for their services and product
continues.
At the same time we have seen, time and time again under the current
law, that as long as jobs are available in this country for people who
live in poverty and hopelessness in other countries, those people will
risk their lives to cross our borders. Our reforms need to reflect that
reality and help us separate economic immigrants from security risks.
This legislation does just that.
The most effective border protection tool we have is establishing a
legal channel for workers to enter the United States after they have
passed background checks and have secured employment. We need to
establish a temporary worker program that permits workers from other
countries to

[[Page S6938]]

come here and find work and employment and to make sure those people
are here on a legal basis.
Recently, David Brooks wrote in his column:
The United States is the Harvard of the world. Millions
long to get in. Yet has this country set up an admissions
system that encourages hard work, responsibility and
competition? No. Under our current immigration system, most
people get into the U.S. through criminality, nepotism or
luck. The current system does almost nothing to encourage
good behavior or maximize the nation's supply of human
capital.
Let's look at how this bill would improve incentives almost
every step of the way.
First, consider the 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants who
are already here. They now have an incentive to think only in
the short term. They have little reason to invest for the
future because their presence here could be taken away.
This bill would encourage them to think in the long term.
To stay, they would have to embark on a long, 13-year
process. They'd have to obey the law, learn English and save
money (to pay the stiff fines). Suddenly, these people would
be lifted from an underclass environment--semi-separate from
mainstream society--and shifted into a middle-class
environment, enmeshed within the normal rules and laws that
the rest of us live by. This would be the biggest values-
shift since welfare reform.
Second, consider the millions living abroad who dream of
coming to the United States. Currently, they have an
incentive to find someone who can smuggle them in, and if
they get caught, they have an incentive to try and try again.
The Senate bill reduces that incentive for lawlessness. If
you think it is light on enforcement, read the thing. It
would not only beef up enforcement on the border, but would
also create an electronic worker registry. People who
overstay their welcome could forfeit their chance of being
regularized forever.

I would remind my colleagues the six people arrested who wanted to
attack Fort Dix, NJ, and to kill Americans--three of them came across
our southern border illegally; three of them came on valid visas and
overstayed them.

Moreover, aspiring immigrants would learn, from an early
age, what sort of person the United States is looking for. In
a break from the current system, this bill awards visas on a
merit-based points system that rewards education, and English
proficiency, agricultural work experience, home ownership and
other traits. Potential immigrants would understand that the
United States is looking for people who can be self-
sufficient from the start, and they'd mold themselves to
demonstrate that ability.

In essence, we are rewarding people for working hard and showing
potential. These are not all high-skilled workers, but they are the
kind of workers and people we should want to become citizens of our
country. By combining family ties with economic realities, we can build
a stronger immigration system that will help to build a stronger, more
competitive economy and Nation.
In addition to future immigrant and nonimmigrant workers, we have to
address the fact that 12 million people are living in the United States
illegally, most of them employed--all of them contributing to our
country. Our economy has come to depend on people whose existence in
our country is furtive, whose whereabouts and activities in many cases
are unknown. I have listened to and understand the concerns of those
who simply advocate sealing our borders and making life so terrible for
people here that they will self-deport. But that is easier said than
done.
I fundamentally believe our Judeo-Christian society would not
tolerate this type of treatment of people within our own country,
whether here legally or not. We need to come up with a humane, moral
way to deal with those people who are here, most of whom are not going
anywhere. No matter how much we improve border security, no matter the
penalties we impose on their employers, no matter how seriously they
are threatened with punishment, we will not find most of them, and we
will not find most of their employers.
The opponents of our proposal to address undocumented workers in this
country decry as amnesty our proposal to bring them out from their
shadows and into compliance with our laws. No, it is not. Amnesty is,
as I observe, for all practical purposes, what exists today. We can
pretend otherwise, but that does not make it so. Amnesty is simply
declaring people who entered the country illegally citizens of the
United States and imposing no other requirements on them. That is not
what we do in this legislation.
Under the provisions of this legislation, undocumented workers will
have incentives to declare their existence and comply with our laws.
They may apply for a worker visa. They would be subjected to background
checks. They must pay substantial fines and fees, totaling
approximately $7,000, learn English, enroll in civic education, remain
employed and, if they choose to get a green card, go to the end of the
line behind those who waited legally outside of the country to come in.
I believe most undocumented workers will accept these requirements in
order to escape the fear, uncertainty, and vulnerability to
exploitation they currently endure. While those who have come here to
do us harm will not come out of hiding to accept those conditions, we
will at least be spared the Herculean task of finding and sorting
through millions of people who came here simply to earn a living.
We are aware of the burdens illegal immigrants impose on our cities
and counties and States. Those burdens which are a Federal
responsibility must be addressed. We need also to face honestly the
moral consequences of our current failed immigration system.
I am hopeful at the end of this debate we can show the American
people that we addressed a serious and urgent problem with sound
judgment, honesty, common sense, and compassion. I hope we can show
that we reached across the aisle to try to solve a serious problem in a
serious way.
It seems almost trite at this point to once again state that our
Nation's immigration system is broken and in bad need of repair. But
without comprehensive immigration reform, it is a fact that our
Nation's security will remain vulnerable. We must act immediately or
face the consequences of another summer of people dying in our deserts,
businesses shutting their doors because they do not have the manpower
to stay open, and criminals hiding in the shadows of our society mixed
in with hard-working people who are the backbone of our economy.
The Senate must have the courage and will to solve this crisis facing
our Nation. The American people are demanding action. I say the time is
overdue, and we are failing the citizens of the United States if we do
not pass this important piece of legislation and ultimately achieve its
enactment and implementation. If we do fail, what then?
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I thank my friend from
Colorado.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona, Senator
McCain, for his comments and for his support of this legislation. I
also want to say that Senator McCain has always spoken to the highest
moral values of this Nation. His history in terms of his contributions
to this country are unequaled. His involvement in trying to deal with
this issue, including addressing it from a moral perspective, is
something I will always admire.
I remember well, I say to Senator McCain, when I went to your office,
probably 2 years ago, as a freshman Senator. When I was sitting in your
office, you pulled out a copy of the Arizona Republic, and I think the
headline was: ``300 People Died in the Desert.'' The Senator spoke
about the moral basis for us to move forward with comprehensive
immigration reform.
The Senator certainly has been a leader in that effort. I thank him
for that. I thank him for his integrity, and I thank him for all his
contributions to this country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I see my friend from Alabama is
in the Chamber
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the failed immigration policies we have
now are in need of reform, in need of comprehensive reform. I said that
last year. Some of my colleagues said borders first; and I had sympathy
with that and it actually would probably have been a healthy process if
we started a year or two ago and established border security and gained
the respect and confidence of the American people. We could then have
been bringing forward a comprehensive immigration bill with more
credibility than we have today.
There is a lot of debate going on, and a lot of posturing going on.
You see

[[Page S6939]]

things, such as my good friend, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
Mike Chertoff who is doing a great job--he frames the issue this way:
It is a choice between Republican conservatives who want to block the
bill by insisting on mass deportations or insisting on deportations
that are just not going to happen.
Well, I am not aware of anybody on our side of the aisle calling for
mass deportations. That is not so. That is a false setup. That is a
triangulation, if you will, good friend, Mr. Chertoff, former U.S.
attorney. We served together in the Department of Justice. He is one of
the best members of the Cabinet. I do not appreciate it, Mike. You tell
me who on this side said we want to have a mass deportation--zero. That
is not the question.
The question is whether we will have a decent bill that will actually
work. I know you have made recommendations that are critical, Mr.
Chertoff, to the passage of the bill that were not included in it. In
fact, I have to give him credit. He did criticize the liberal
immigration rights advocates by suggesting they will prolong the
anguish by holding off the bill also. But I do not think that is the
right issue here.
All of us want a compassionate, legitimate piece of legislation that
can work and will serve our long-term interests and will be consistent
with the principles that are set forth by the people who worked on the
legislation. But I am not given confidence. I will repeat again: I am
not feeling confident at all there will be a legitimate, full, vigorous
debate and a lot of amendments that go to some of the weaknesses in the
legislation. I am afraid they are not going to be considered.
I say that because I see the tactics moving along. We have gone a
week with only three, four votes. That is not enough time on a bill of
this size and complexity. I think we had 40 or 50 votes on the
bankruptcy bill. It was nothing more than an updating of bankruptcy
law. It went on for weeks and months. It came through the Senate three
or four times actually before it finally became law.
There were other bills that had far more extensive debate and
discussion than this one. But none of those bills come close to having
the impact on America or come close to having the attention of the
American people to the degree this issue does.
The reason the American people are angry and upset is simple. They
are not angry, they are not upset with immigrants. That is not what I
read people to be saying. What I think they are angry and upset with is
Congress and the President for absolutely refusing to listen to their
natural and proper concerns about immigration. What I am hearing is
they do not want to be taken to the cleaners once again.
They do not want to be victims of a bait and switch in which we
promise we are going to create a system that will work for lawful
immigration, that will allow us to have an immigration policy that
serves the national interest, that allows millions of people to come to
our country in immigration status--but it would be a number we can have
jobs for, without pulling down the wages of hard-working American
workers. It would bring in numbers sufficient to make sure we do not
cause problems in schools and other areas that we cannot quite handle.
The number ought to be correct, and that they ought to be, insofar as
possible, persons who are going to flourish in our economy, people who
have the skills, language, and education levels that indicate they will
likely be very successful here, like Canada does. That is what they do.
We have a touch of that in this bill--far better than last year, I have
to say--but I have been so disappointed to read the fine print and to
see that movement to follow the philosophy that Canada does has not
nearly been strong enough. It is discouraging to see it has not been.
So the individuals who thought they would meet and reach an agreement
and plop it on the floor of the Senate--for which all the rest of us
folks would just dutifully comply with and ratify and say: Thank you,
my elite colleagues. We are glad you have worked out this immigration
problem. Thank you so much. We know something had to be done--and it
does have to be done--we are just overjoyed you got Senator Kennedy and
Senator Kyl and everybody has agreed, and we are going to plop this
bill down, and you guys will just ratify it. You can have a lot of
little amendments if you want to, but, remember, if anything touches
the core principles we have decided on, why, that would be something we
just couldn't accept, and every one of us is going to stick together,
and we are going to vote against it, even if we might agree with your
amendment. We had to compromise that to get this agreement. Yes, Jeff,
we like that amendment. I know you like that amendment. I really think
you are right on that amendment, but I cannot vote with you because I
have agreed with this group over here in this secret session which the
public was not involved in. We made a commitment to one another, and we
are going to stick together and vote you down.
Now, this is not the way old Bill was taught law was supposed to
occur in America. It is unbelievable that you would have a piece of
legislation of this historic nature not even go to committee and that
this group just met. How quick did we have it? Oh, well, we were going
to have the bill last Thursday so people could read it, and then it was
going to be Friday. We promise we will have the bill Friday. Then it
turned out to be Saturday morning, at 2 a.m., they emailed it and tried
to say they put it out Friday. It was Saturday, at best, when the bill
was out. They claim it is 300 and some pages. I believe this is it.
They say it is 300 pages or whatever the number of pages it is in this
stack of bills, but they didn't print it in the normal language. I have
never seen a piece of legislation of any size go through here and not
be in bill language. This is fine print. If you put this bill in bill
language, it would probably be 1,000 pages. A good immigration bill
needs to be 1,000 pages. There are thousands of issues involved that
need to be clarified, hundreds and hundreds of complex situations that,
if not properly addressed, will never work if we don't do it right.
That is all I would say to my colleagues and friends. I love you. I
appreciate all your efforts to try to solve the American people's
problems. I know you didn't want to bother with them while you met and
had your discussions, except I guess the Chamber of Commerce and this
special interest group and that special interest group and maybe some
pollsters telling this and that; I don't know how that came out. But I
don't appreciate the fact that we are not being able to have a full
debate on it, and we are not going to be able to have very many
amendments. We could probably, without--well, you say: You are trying
to file amendments to delay. You want to slow down the process. Well,
as Senator Specter said, in retrospect, we would have done better had
the bill gone through committee, the Judiciary Committee. At least they
did last year. It was rammed through the committee last year because I
saw it when I was on the committee. This is what happened last year:
They waited until the last minute. Senator Frist, the majority leader,
says we are going to bring an immigration bill up next Monday. On the
Judiciary Committee, we are working hard. We go to the Judiciary
Committee, and Senator Specter has a bill that had some possibilities.
It had problems, but it had some attractiveness to it. It wasn't long
before Senator Kennedy dropped his bill and substituted and the Specter
bill was gone. We had an entirely new bill. Then they dropped an AgJOBS
thing on top of that. Then they dropped the DREAM Act, which gives
instate tuition to illegal aliens and things of that nature that all
got dropped on, passed, pop, pop, pop.
Senator Frist says: Well, if you don't have the bill on the floor by
Monday night, I am going to go with an enforcement only bill. So we
rush and rush around there and they put the bill down on Monday night
and here we go. Senator Reid says we don't want any amendments. Senator
Cornyn and Senator Kyl had some amendments. They got their backs up and
began to push back and people said: What are we going to do with a bill
without any amendments? So finally, Senator Frist pulled the bill. He
said: We are not going to bring it back up until the Democratic leaders
agree we are going to have some amendments. It came back up for a
couple of weeks of debate and cleared this body, knowing the House of
Representatives had no intention whatsoever of ever considering it.

[[Page S6940]]

It was sort of a gesture because it was not an effective piece of
legislation.
This year's bill is better than last year's, although I have been
disappointed to see that it has backed up on some issues of
significance. I still would say the framework of this year's bill is a
good bit better than last year's. Last year's bill should never, ever
have become law. It was fatally flawed.
So what were the principles that the promoters of this legislation
said should be occurring here? They said we need a lawful system, that
we wouldn't have amnesty and that there would be a trigger, which was
rejected last year, a trigger and a number of other things they cited
as key component principles of a good immigration bill. All right. I
agree with that. Many of those principles were sound. But as we read
the fine print, our concern is--my fine staff, they have worked hard,
including weekends. They get the bill at 2 a.m. Saturday morning. They
work Saturday nights and Sunday nights and here we are on the floor of
the Senate. The thing does not even get introduced until Monday night,
and nobody has had a chance to read it until then. So it is a big
problem.
My fundamental concern then is that the bill does not live up to the
stated principles that it contains. So what we need in reform are a
number of things. We need to recognize--unless anyone misinterprets
this--we need to recognize we are indeed a Nation of immigrants. We
are. Some people don't believe that, but I don't believe there is a
Member of Congress who doesn't understand that. We want and will have a
continuing flow of new people into our country, and it enriches us and
has proven to be one of our strengths as a Nation. I think we need to
restate that again and again and that immigration will continue in the
future and that we are going to treat compassionately, even generously,
people who have broken our laws and come into our country illegally.
But we must do it in a way that minimizes the damage that will be done
to our legal system and our ability to enforce the law in the future.
My colleagues have been involved in law enforcement and you get busy
and you start giving people immunity for this and that crime repeatedly
and people begin to believe you are never going to enforce it. At some
point in the future, you get to the point where you would not be able
to enforce it. On the floor, I think maybe yesterday, Senator Grassley
from Iowa, who is such a great Senator, such a direct speaker, asked
this question. He said he was here in 1986 when they promised no
amnesty. He is very concerned because it didn't work and he felt
responsibility for that. He was not going to be a part of new
immigration legislation that doesn't work such as the 1986 legislation.
He said: In 1986, they said we are not ever going to have amnesty
again, and he asked this question: Have you heard any of the promoters
of this legislation say we will not have amnesty again? He said: You
are not going to hear them say that. That is one thing you would not
hear because after--because if we give amnesty again, what good is it
to even say we are not going to do it? Because what principle, what
basis on which to stand will we have 10, 12, 15 years from now when
several million other people are in our country legally and someone
says they are here illegally, why don't we enforce the law and ask them
to go home. Oh, well, you gave amnesty before. You gave amnesty in
2007, you gave amnesty in 1986. How can you enforce the law now?

So to not understand as a matter of law and principle that once
again, taking the easy amnesty step will make it almost impossible in
the future for us ever to enforce the law is a mistake.
I read the debate in 1986--a lot of it. It went just like that.
People said: One-time amnesty. We have to do this. Own-time amnesty.
The others said: Well, we are not sure about this. We think if you have
an amnesty and you wipe out the laws that we had here and the
violations that have occurred, you are liable to increase the threat in
the future that more people will break into our country illegally on
the expectations that they, too, after a period of time, will be
allowed to stay legally. If you read that debate, you will see whose
predictions were correct. I have to say that. I have to say that.
So I think the Z visa program that allows people who come here
illegally to stay here illegally, to come out of the shadows with some
sort of status, but not, I would suggest, as it is now written giving
them a guaranteed path to receiving every single benefit that accrues
to people who come legally, I don't think we should do that. That is my
principle. If you didn't follow the rules, somehow, it ought to be
clear that you will never get every single benefit of citizenship and
participation in America than if you waited in line. If you give up on
that principle, we have a problem. So I think if we had the courage and
the firmness and the strength in this Senate and would listen to the
American people, we would say the principles of 1986 are going to be
affirmed. OK. We will figure out a way you can stay, your children can
be citizens, you can have all the protections of the laws of our
country but not every benefit of citizenship, and we will never, ever
again do that. If we give away that position, I think we have a
problem.
So what I would like to talk about is some of the loopholes in this
bill. I talked about the loopholes last year in the bill and there were
quite a number of them. This is not an exhaustive list. You heard
Senator Allard earlier this morning make comments about the weaknesses
in the legislation, and you heard Senator Cornyn point out some
weaknesses in the legislation. I have identified 15. We certainly would
not be able to talk about all those this morning that I wish to talk
about, but there are many more. It is troubling that we might not be
able to have an opportunity to fully amend the bill to fix these
loopholes.
Our old buddy, Bill, the ideal way that laws should be written in
America, well, he has been forgotten in this process. I will tell you
what could happen in the House of Representatives. I don't think they
are having any serious hearings over there. This bill could hit the
House of Representatives if it came out of the Senate--and it may well
come out of this body--it could hit the House of Representatives. They
could call it up. They don't have unlimited debate. They don't have a
very strong ability to cut off debate. They could vote the bill out. It
could go to conference. The conferees will be chosen and controlled by
Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, and the Speaker of the House,
Nancy Pelosi, and they will appoint the people they want to fix any
differences in the bill, and they can make virtually any changes they
want to. Then the bill is on the floor, and it is either up or down,
and it might pass. As one Member of the House said about whether
President Bush would sign it, he said President Bush would sign a pork
chop if it had immigration reform on it. We have to be careful what we
do and what is in this bill.
It can affect what is actually going to become law. There is no
passing this off to the House of Representatives, like last year, as if
that was going to fix many of the problems that were in the
legislation. The House is liable to make it worse. Well, you have heard
one of the principles in the bill.
I am glad to hear Senator McCain say there was a trigger in the
legislation. He resisted a trigger last year. We had quite a debate on
it. Those opposing it last year said you cannot have a trigger because
all of us who met and wrote the bill don't want a trigger; you will
upset our compromise. I asked then--and I ask today--who was in this
compromise? Did you have public hearings? Were people allowed to do
what you were discussing? Did La Raza get to put in their opinion? Did
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce get to put in their opinion? Who all got
to put in their opinion? They didn't ask my opinion--well, that is not
totally so; I did talk to a couple of them, whom I expressed some
opinions to. Fundamentally, that is just not an open process. Sometimes
you can do something like that as a tough nut to be cracked, and people
have to make a decision. But this is too big, too broad, too much
policy. The American people are too concerned about it, and it is too
important to be settled that way.
Let me tell you what the trigger was about. I offered in the
Judiciary Committee last year--because it dawned on me that in
Judiciary Committee, I offered an amendment to say: Let's add border
patrol, and they accepted it. I

[[Page S6941]]

offered an amendment that showed how we don't have enough bed spaces to
end catch and release, saying you had to have more. They accepted that.
I offered amendment after amendment, and they accepted them. I thought,
why is this? So I offered amendments to change the policy to make the
law actually enforceable, and they got voted down.
Why would that be so easy? Because the brain trust that was proposing
that bill last year knew the history of 1986; they knew how Congress
worked, and they knew they never had any intention of funding all the
Border Patrol agents and the fencing and the prison beds. We could pass
an authorization bill to build prisons, and they are never going to get
built, I am telling you. I will show you examples. It means nothing.
So I offered a trigger. It finally dawned on me what this was about,
how the game was going to be played out. I offered an amendment that
said: You don't get any of this amnesty until the Secretary of Homeland
Security certifies that he has operational control over our lawless
border. They voted that down.
So Senator Isakson, from Georgia, picked that up and wrote it in even
more detail when the bill came to the floor and offered the amendment.
We had quite a debate over this because it was important--the trigger
was important. The cabal who put all of it together said: We cannot do
that because it would upset our delicate compromise in the groups that
participated in writing this bill--not the American people--and they
would oppose it. They voted it down. It was a fairly close vote, but
they voted down the trigger because they really didn't want that
trigger because they never intended to do the things that were in the
bill. The trigger would have said: You have to build a fence, you have
to build the prison beds, and you have to hire the people. If you don't
do those things--and actually do them--the other stuff doesn't become
law, the amnesty. That was the debate last year.
This year, they say: We got the message, we are going to have a
trigger. Well, good. I was happy about that. That sounded good. This is
one of our principles. This time, we are not going to mislead the
American people. We are really going to do what we promised and have a
trigger, and you can relax, Sessions, because we are not going to fool
you this time. It is not going to be like 1986.
But the problem is that the trigger doesn't get us there. I just have
to tell you that. The trigger only applies to the guestworker program
and taking illegal aliens off the probationary Z visa, and all other
programs in the bill will begin immediately. So if the trigger is never
met--if the trigger that is supposed to be met is never met, these
requirements we put in there to ensure that we were going to follow
through with enforcement, if they are never met, the probationary
status in the amnesty group never expires.
After the bill passes, Homeland Security has 180 days to begin
accepting Z visa applications. They would accept them for 1 year and
can extend the application filing for another year. When the trigger is
met, if it ever is, Homeland Security will start approving the
applications they have been processing and adjudicating. What happens
if the trigger is never met? Will the probationary amnesty end or
expire? Those are pretty good questions. If the trigger is never met, I
can answer it for you: The Z visa probationary status never ends in the
bill.
It is explained on page 291, line 17:

Probationary authorization document does not expire until
``6 months after the date on which the Secretary begins to
approve applications for Z visas.''

So if the trigger is never met, if the Department of Homeland
Security never starts approving the applications and the 6-month clock
never starts ticking, therefore, the probationary authorization
document never expires.
My staff asked about this in one of the briefings by the group
promoting the bill. The staffers asked: Does the Z visa probationary
card ever expire? The answer was: Well, because the triggers are going
to get met sometime, in fact, it is not going to expire.
So, in addition, we need to remember that there is no guarantee that
the additional enforcement items--I talked about that earlier--in title
I and title II of this legislation that purport to be effective in
enforcing the law--there are dozens of things there that are not listed
in the trigger. The question is, Will they ever be funded?

You should be aware, sophisticated Americans and Members of the
Senate, that there is no obligation or requirement whatsoever that
these things ever get funded in the future. The bill itself
acknowledges that in many different places.
So with regard to some of the things in the bill that are supposed to
make enforcement better and make the system work better, they use this
phrase--they say, ``subject to the availability of appropriations.''
That phrase is used 18 times in the bill. What does that mean? It
means we are going to increase our prison beds, increase border patrol,
and do all these things which are in our law, and we are going to
enforce the law subject to the availability of appropriations. Well,
somebody probably wants a bridge in their home State or a highway or a
university grant in their home district--more money for this or that,
good programs or bad programs, but that is how these things get lost
out in the competition for spending. They don't get done. They
acknowledge that.
The phrase ``authorized to be appropriated'' is used 20 times. So
they are saying we are authorizing to be appropriated money to do this,
that, and the other. They are going to make this bill good. So our
masters of the universe come out and say: Don't worry, American people,
I know you think we are not going to enforce the law, but we have new
Border Patrol officers and prison spaces and fencing, and they add the
phrase. But all it really says in the legislation is that it is
authorized to be appropriated. There is no way they can guarantee that
Congress next year is going to appropriate the money for what they put
in the bill.
All of that was key to the trigger effect. I have to tell you that,
in my view, the trigger is not nearly strong enough. It has been
undermined, and virtually everything in the trigger has already been
completed or is soon to be completed. It doesn't have some of the new
things that have been promised here in the trigger.
Loophole No. 2. This is very important. The enforcement trigger does
not require that the U.S. visa exit portion of US-VISIT--the biometric
border check system that records that you have come into the country--
will be implemented. It was required by Congress in 1996. Over 10 years
ago, we required that the US-VISIT exit system be in place; that is, if
you have a visa to the United States for 6 months or 30 days or a year,
you come in and present your card, it goes into the computer system,
like at the bank or like your timeclock where you work, it clocks you
in, and then it clocks you out. If you don't exit when you are supposed
to, red flags can go up that you didn't exit when you were supposed to.
You are an ``overstay.'' It is an absolutely critical step in creating
a lawful immigration system that will work. It was required to be
completed in 2005. Here we are in 2007, and it is not completed. Did we
promise to complete it as part of the trigger? No, no, no. There would
be no way to ascertain whether people exit when they are supposed to.
Under the bill, it says a certain number of people come seasonably,
or certain people for 2 years, and sometimes family members can come
for 30 days, and sometimes family members can come for 2 years--those
kinds of things. Who is going to find out if they didn't go home when
they were supposed to? Over a third of the people in our country
illegally came legally but overstayed their visa, and many have no
intention of returning to their home country whatsoever. We don't even
know they didn't return because we have no way to clock out when they
left. We have no idea who left when they were supposed to leave.
This is why I say the legislation before us was designed to fail. I
am not sure the Members all designed it to fail, but the effort, when
it came down to it, when confronted with things which would actually
work and which are critical to the success of an effective border
system, they weren't in there, and that sends you a signal on what is
really there.

[[Page S6942]]

In 1996, we required, as I said, this US-VISIT system to have an exit
component by 2005, and it is still not complete. Do you think that in
1996, Members of the Congress and Members of the Senate went out and
told their constituents that we are working on immigration; we passed a
bill that will have an exit system in 10 years or 9 years, and that
will help us enforce the law, and I am so proud we passed that? What
good is it to pass it if it never happens? It hasn't happened yet, and
it is not required through the trigger, which is the only thing that
can require it to work.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center's 2006 report entitled ``Modes
of Entry for Unauthorized Migrant Population'':

4 to 5.5 million of the current illegal alien population
``entered legally'' and are non-immigrant visa overstayers.

Despite what we know about the overstay rates, the US-VISIT exit
system is not made part of the trigger. That is a very big loophole.
I don't think we are serious if we don't have an exit system. One
might say it is hard to do. We have had 10 years. I will say one thing,
if President Bush wanted the exit system to be in place, he would have
it in place. If Congress wanted it in place, we would have it in place.
A separate section of the bill does require the Department of
Homeland Security to submit to Congress a schedule for developing an
exit component. That is not good enough.
Loophole No. 3, one of these little spots in poor old Bill who got
shot up because he didn't go to committee like he was supposed to learn
in civics class. He is supposed to go to committee. Maybe some
loopholes would have been closed if we had an opportunity to talk about
it publicly before the whole world.
Loophole No. 3: The bill does not require the Department of Homeland
Security to have enough bed space to actually end catch and release at
the border and in the interior. It only requires Homeland Security to
maintain its current level of bed space and establishes a ``catch, pay,
and release'' program that benefits illegal aliens from countries other
than Mexico who are caught at the border and who can post a $5,000
bond.
A $5,000 bond is not hard to post if you know how the system works
and you are prepared. It can be done any number of ways. But let's say
an individual has a cousin or uncle or someone in the United States and
they come into the country and are apprehended, and they came from
Europe or Brazil or someplace other than Mexico. All you have to do is
post a bond and then you are released pending some hearing on
deportation.
We have had this problem for a number of years. Secretary Chertoff
has made some progress in ending it, and I give him credit for that.
There was an article in a newspaper that showed that people other than
Mexicans--you see, it is not easy to deport them. It is easy to take a
person back to Mexico, but how do you take a person back to Chile,
Brazil, Indonesia, or Belarus? It takes some effort to do this. So they
were releasing everyone on bail because they didn't have any bed space,
and asking them to show up at some given time so they could deport
them. If a person is willing to break into the country in violation of
the laws, how many of those people are going to show up after they have
been apprehended to be flown out of the country? No, not zero; 95
percent don't show up. That is what the number is. In fact, some of the
rules smugglers told their people to follow is if you see an
immigration officer, turn yourself in because they will take you
further inland, they will process you, and let you out on bail, and you
never have to come back, which is exactly what 95 percent are doing. It
is a mockery of the law and, in some areas, we have made progress, but
that is not a part of the trigger.
What about the bed space? You have to have a certain amount of bed
space or you can't hold people. Over the past 2 years, the Senate
appropriated money for 9,000 new beds, bringing us to a total of 27,500
beds. This is the current funding level, 27,500 beds. We have already
funded that amount. Nothing new was added to the requirements of the
trigger until the Gregg amendment was adopted earlier this week. Now
the trigger requires Homeland Security to reach a detention bed space
of 31,500 beds, 4,000 more.
The 27,500 beds, however, are far less than the 43,000 detention beds
required under current law to be in place and constructed by the end of
this year.
OK, cynics out there, does that provide fuel to your fire? How about
that? Does that breach cynicism? We require in the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that this country have 43,000 beds
by the end of this year, but when this bill came up, they only had in
the trigger portion, the thing that would guarantee we reach that
level, 27,500 beds. Senator Gregg raised the number to 31,500, but in
2004, when Senators went out and bragged that they raised our number to
43,000 detention beds, that was supposed to be met, and we have no
intention of meeting it, I submit. Because it is in bill language
doesn't mean it will ever happen.
This month, a Federal lawyer who used to be with the Bureau of
Prisons, Joseph Summerill, wrote an op-ed piece--he used to be with the
Bureau of Prisons, so he knows this issue. As a lawyer, he was a
counsel for the Bureau of Prisons, and he now practices with the firm
of Greenberg Traurig.
He says the following:

. . . the demand for deportation and removal operation
detention space has grown much faster than available bed
space has. . . .

He goes on:

Despite the fact that high-risk/high-priority immigrants
include immigrants who are associated with criminal
investigations, have committed fraud, or are likely to
abscond, these immigrants are often released because of the
lack of detention bed space. . . .
The lack of detention bed space has resulted in creating a
de facto amnesty program for illegal immigrants who are
subject to removal, particularly those immigrants from
countries ``other than Mexico.''

From 2002 to 2004, he explains:

DRO--

That is the detention and removal operation

DRO personnel levels grew by only 3 percent and the funding
of bed space decreased by 6 percent. According to the
inspector general, declining funds, the shortage of DRO
personnel, and decreased bed space led to a 38 percent
increase of illegal immigrants released by the DRO.

We are supposed to be fixing this catch-and-release program. I
thought we were. Here this former lawyer with the Bureau of Prisons
said we had a 38-percent increase in illegal immigrants being released.
He concludes:

DRO has faced annual mandates by Congress, the President,
and the American people to increase the number of illegal
immigrants who are detained. Unfortunately, Federal funding
has not kept pace with these mandates. . . .

So it is clear we need a lot more beds, and 31,500 beds, as we
approved in an amendment the other day, is better than 27,500, but it
is not enough.
So why are the American people cynical? We passed a law in 2004
requiring 43,000 beds by the end of this year. We are at 27,500. It is
not likely to ever happen, and that is why they did not put it in the
trigger because if they did, those bed spaces would have to be
completed.
Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague Senator Bond from
Missouri in the Chamber. He is a most capable Senator. I appreciate his
leadership. I have a number of loopholes I could talk about and will
talk about in the days to come.
I am raising these issues to say I can't vote for a bill that is
likely to clear the House of Representatives and be signed by the
President with loophole after loophole after loophole. I cannot go to
my constituents and say I am pleased we have now passed legislation
that will actually work to create a lawful system, that will treat
compassionately the people who are here, will create a flow in the
future based on merit and competition, and will do a lot of other
things we want done, the sponsors of this bill are saying they want
done, and asking us to vote for this bill because they say it will
accomplish that.
My disagreement is not with their principles and their stated goals,
but my disagreement is the language in the legislation is dramatically
ineffective to accomplish that.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to
speak

[[Page S6943]]

briefly. I have proposed an amendment which I believe is very important
to this bill to cut the automatic path to citizenship. It is filed at
the desk, and I will call it up later.
Citizenship is the most sacred gift Americans can provide. It should
not serve as a reward to those who broke the law to enter or remain in
this country. The path to citizenship is at the heart of the amnesty
criticism of this bill. Cutting this path cuts out the most severe
complaint about this bill.
I supported the Vitter amendment yesterday to strike the entire
program proposed to deal with 12 million illegal aliens in the country.
Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected. So today I propose a much
more targeted, focused amendment to strike the controversial aspect of
the proposal to give the award of citizenship to those 12 million
illegal aliens.
Whatever we end up doing with those 12 million illegal aliens, it
does not require the further step of giving them a path to citizenship
ahead of others. Those 12 million illegal aliens came to this country
to work without the expectation of becoming citizens. More illegal
aliens will come to this country on a temporary basis to work without
expectation of citizenship. There is no need to grant these people the
gift of citizenship.
Specifically, my amendment will strike the contents of section 602 on
earned adjustment of Z status aliens, replacing it with a prohibition
on issuing an immigrant visa to Z nonimmigrants which is currently in
the bill and a prohibition of adjusting a Z nonimmigrant to legalize
permanent resident or so-called green card holder.
In this way, the path to citizenship is cut off. I urge the Senate to
call up and adopt this amendment. I believe it will enable other goals
in the bill to be accomplished without giving the amnesty path to
citizenship.
I yield the floor and I thank my colleagues.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to make one correction. I think I
said we had four or five votes, or three or four votes, or something of
that nature. My staff tells me we have had seven votes this week. I
think that is better than four, but that would indicate that in 2 weeks
we will have had about 14 votes. That is not enough, in my view, to fix
the problems in this legislation.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his
heartfelt statements concerning this very important issue that faces
our country today.
I wish to do two things here. First, I wish to remind the Senate how
far along this road we have come. This debate on immigration reform is
not one that started on this Monday. It is indeed a debate the Senate
started over a year and a half ago, and it started in the Judiciary
Committee. It then went through nearly a month of debate, with many
amendments and changes, and ultimately a bill that was passed out of
the Senate, this comprehensive immigration reform, by a vote, as I
recall, of 64 Senators voting to move that bill forward.
Now, that was a year ago. We are now a year ahead, and what has
happened during this past year is that there have been continuing
conversations about how we might be able to create an immigration
reform system that works for our country. After many hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of hours of meetings, which included the White House and
included the leading members of many of the committees in the Senate,
there was a bill that was crafted. It may be an imperfect bill, but
part of what is happening today is that, as amendments have been
crafted and introduced, there is an effort to make the legislation
better.
At the end of the day, I wish to give thanks to all those Members of
the Senate and members of the President's Cabinet, and the President
himself, for what they have done in moving this immigration debate
forward.
I will also add that our majority leader, Senator Reid, long ago gave
warning to the Members of the Senate that we were going to move forward
to immigration. This was not a surprise to the Members of the Senate.
Months ago, Senator Reid said we have to deal with this most
fundamental national security problem of our time, and what I will do
is I will reserve time at the end of May so we can deal with
immigration reform.
Well, he did that, and he kept everybody's feet to the fire. At the
beginning of this week, Senator Reid made the decision he would allow
another week of debate. So that, at the end of the day, we will have
had 3 weeks to study and debate the legislation that was put together.
I will remind my colleagues there has been significant progress made.
There have been 23 amendments that have been offered. Of those, 13 have
already been disposed of. Seven of them were disposed of this week with
rollcall votes, six disposed of with voice votes. As of yesterday,
there were 10 pending amendments. Today, there have been four more
amendments that have been offered, and the beginning debate on those
amendments has taken place. So the majority leader's decision to add 1
more week to continue the deliberation on this bill is something which
is needed and something which we all appreciate. Hopefully, what it
will lead to is the passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill
that is good for the American people.
I wish to take a few minutes to sum up, from my point of view, why
this legislation is so important. We now know we have a system in
America for immigration which is broken. It is a system of lawlessness
and it is a system that victimizes a lot of people, from the people who
are the workers to the employers of this country. We also know it is a
system that has been broken for a very long time. Our laws have not
been enforced on immigration. The United States has chosen, instead of
enforcing the law, to look the other way. Indeed, over the last 5 or 6
years, as I understand it, there have been less than four enforcement
actions taken against employers across the country, on average.
When we have that kind of chaos and lawlessness and the kind of
broken borders we have, what does it do to the United States? The first
thing it does is it compromises our national security. How can we have
national security in a post-9/11 world when we don't know who is coming
into our country? We have 400,000 or 600,000 people coming here
illegally every year. How can we say to the American people that the
national security interest of the United States is being protected? How
can we do that? We cannot do that. How can we, as Senators and as
people who are leading our Government, say to the people of our country
that in this democracy we are upholding the rule of law, when we look
the other way instead of enforcing the laws of the country? In my view,
we need to move forward and we need to develop comprehensive
immigration reform.
As I have looked at this legislation and the different aspects of the
legislation that have been crafted together, it seems to me we need to
look at the comprehensive approach as though we were looking at a
tripod. We have to ask ourselves this question: What is the aim of this
legislation?
The first aim, in my view--one leg of the tripod--is to fix our
borders. We have broken borders. We have broken borders today. So we
have proposed in our legislation an additional number of Border Patrol
agents to help us secure the border. We started out in this legislation
with 18,000 additional Border Patrol officers. Through an amendment by
Senator Gregg, that number is now up to 20,000 Border Patrol agents.
That is significant additional manpower that is going to go to the
border.

We have approved at least 370 miles of fencing. So we will have
fencing that will go into the strategic places along the border. We
also have included in the legislation 200 miles of vehicle barriers. We
have included 70 ground-based radar and camera towers. We have included
four unmanned aerial vehicles. We have included new checkpoints and
points of entry.
So one of our aims is to secure the border, and the legislation we
have put forward, with the assistance and leadership of Secretary
Chertoff, will ensure we have a protected border.
We also need to then ask ourselves: What are our other aims? It
doesn't do much good to secure our borders but within our country we
simply continue to ignore the law. So we need to enforce the law within
the country. That

[[Page S6944]]

ought to be our second aim. That is the second leg of this tripod: how
we enforce our laws within our country. So we must secure America's
interior.
How are we going to do that? Well, our legislation does that in a
number of ways. First, we will increase the detention capacity of our
immigration enforcement system to be able to hold those who are here
unlawfully at the number of 27,500 a day--27,500 beds in detention
facilities for those who are caught here unlawfully.
Secondly, we will go ahead and hire an additional 1,000 new ICE
investigators to help us deal with the investigations of the laws that
are broken under our immigration system. We will hire 2,500 new Customs
and Border Protection workers. We will reimburse State and local
communities, State and local communities that today are having to deal
with the problems relating to criminal aliens. We will create a new
employer verification system so that employers know the person they are
hiring is legal and authorized to work in the United States, and we
will do it in a way that does not put an unnecessary burden on American
employers. We will hire an additional 1,000 new worksite compliance
personnel. We will increase the penalties for gang activity, for fraud,
and for human smuggling. We will streamline the background check
process, we will require new fraudproof immigration documents with
biometric identifiers, and we will encourage partnerships between
Federal and State and local law enforcement to make sure our laws are,
in fact, being enforced.
So the second aim--to secure America's interior--is something we have
covered amply in this legislation.
The third aim--the third leg of this tripod--is to secure America's
economic future. I wish to speak briefly about three aspects of how we
will secure America's economic future.
First, the AgJOBS Act. The AgJOBS legislation allows us to maintain
our current agricultural workforce. It will reform the existing
agriculture program and make it effective. That legislation has been
crafted to a point where I think there are 567 organizations that have
endorsed it, from the Colorado Farm Bureau, to the Farmers Union, to
every single agricultural organization in America.
The leaders on AgJOBS in the Senate, Senator Feinstein and Senator
Craig, have been eloquent in making their statements about the need for
the agricultural community, farmers and ranchers, to be able to have a
stable workforce. We need to stop the rotting of the vegetables and the
fruits in California, in Colorado, and across this country. The only
way we are going to be able to do that is if we have a stable workforce
for agriculture.
We also include in this legislation, as part of securing America's
future, a new temporary worker program. Yes, it is a program that is
controversial. It is very controversial on the Democratic side, and
there are some Members on the Republican side as well who do not like
that particular piece of legislation. I will say this, however. When we
crafted the legislation, we included the kinds of worker protections to
make sure the exploitation of past programs will not occur.
In the past, there were programs, such as the Brasero program, from
years ago, in which there was massive exploitation of workers who were
being brought here for a short period of time. What we have done in
this legislation is to make sure that massive exploitation will not
occur because the worker protections have been included in this
legislation.
Finally, we will secure America's economic future by providing a
realistic solution to the 12 million or so American people who are
working in America, who have come here illegally, and who are in an
undocumented status. That, at the end of the day, in many ways, has
been the most contentious item we have debated in immigration reform.
What do we do with the 12 million people here who are working in our
factories, who are making our beds, who are fixing our food in our
restaurants, and who do all the work here in America to make sure
everybody's daily needs are taken care of? They interface with us in
our daily lives.
Some people have said, as all of us have heard, I am sure, every
Senator here, we ought to round them up and deport them all; we ought
to have a mass deportation of the 12 million people here in America
today.
A mass deportation. Well, there is a fiscal cost associated with
that. Some people have made an estimate that it would cost multiple
billions of dollars to be able to round up all these people and to
deport them.
Can we actually do it? Can we actually deport 12 million people? If
we were to deport 12 million people, in my view, No. 1, we would have a
massive dislocation in the American economy; No. 2, it would be an un-
American thing for us to do as a people because it would be inhumane.
These 12 million people have brought their hopes and dreams to America,
and they have contributed significantly to the workforce. It is our
broken system which has allowed the illegality that has taken place to
occur over a long period of time. So what we have crafted is a way
forward that provides a realistic solution to how we deal with these
people.
Now, on the other side, and in some places of our country, what we
hear is a loud cry of amnesty. Well, I join President Bush and my
colleagues, Senator John Kyl and Senator Kennedy, in saying this is not
amnesty. What we are doing is saying, first of all, they will have to
pay a penalty. When someone breaks the law in this country, they have
to pay for having broken the law. If you do the crime, you have to do
the time. Well, what we are saying is that the law has been broken, and
they are going to have to pay very hefty penalties in order to come
into compliance with the law.
We also say they have to go to the back of the line. The fact that
someone came here illegally and crossed the border illegally will not
give them an advantage against those who are trying to come in through
our system in a very legal fashion. So all these people, the new Z
cardholders, will go to the back of the line.
The next thing we will do is, we will require them to return home
before they can apply for their green card. They will have to go home
to a country outside the United States and do a touchback before they
are able to come back in. We will require them to learn English. We
will require them to remain crime free. I could go on and on with
respect to the requirements.

I have often said to those who claim this is amnesty, this is not
amnesty, this is purgatory. You are basically taking these 12 million
people and putting them in a purgatory status for a very long time
before they would ultimately be eligible for a green card. That is a
purgatory for a minimum of 8 years and for many as much as 12 years.
The legislation that has been crafted in a bipartisan way that is
before this body is legislation which is tough, it is fair, it is
practical, it is realistic. Our national security requires us to move
forward with this legislation. Our economic security requires us to get
to the finish line. The moral values of America that have guided
America for so long require us to be successful in this mission.
As we conclude the week's debate on immigration, I would like to read
a prayer, a prayer that was written by a person who knew a lot about
immigration because he saw a lot of the victimization that occurred
when there was a broken system of immigration in this country. That was
the founder and President of the United Farm Workers of America, Cesar
Chavez, who passed away in 1993. He was a friend of mine. I knew him,
and I knew his family. This is what he wrote. He said in his prayer:

Show me the suffering of the most miserable;
So I will know my people's plight.
Free me to pray for others;
For you are present in every person.
Help me take responsibility for my own life;
So that I can be free at last.
Grant me courage to serve others;
For in service there is true life.
Give me honesty and patience;
So that the spirit will live among us.
Let the spirit flourish and grow;
So that we will never tire of the struggle.
Let us remember those who have died for justice;
For they have given us life.
Help us love even those who hate us;
So that we can change the world.

That was written by Cesar Chavez, the founder of the United Farm
Workers. I think his inspiration has appeal today. It is yet another
way to give us a clarion call to come to a successful conclusion of
this immigration debate

[[Page S6945]]

which is here on the floor of the Senate.

Amendment No. 1183, as Modified

I ask unanimous consent that the Clinton amendment, No. 1183, be
modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows.

On page 260, line 13, strike ``567,000'' and insert
``480,000''.
On page 260, line 19, strike ``127,000'' and insert
``40,000''.
On page 269, line 18, insert ``or the child or spouse of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence'' after
``United States''.
On page 269, line 22, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 269, line 23, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 269, line 23, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 269, line 24, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 269, line 25, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 269, line 26, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 269, line 32, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident's'' after ``citizen's''.
On page 269, line 41, insert ``or lawful permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''.
On page 270, strike lines 18 through 27.
On page 270, line 29, strike the first ``(3)'' and insert
``(2)''.
On page 271, line 17, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
On page 273, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
(5) Rules for determining whether certain aliens are
immediate relatives.--Section 201(f) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(f)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3),'' and inserting
``paragraph (2),''; and
(ii) by striking ``(b)(2)(A)(i)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
(D) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking
``(b)(2)(A)'' and inserting ``(b)(2)''.
(6) Numerical limitation to any single foreign state.--
Section 202 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1152) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (4); and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4).
(7) Allocation of immigration visas.--Section 203(h) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(h)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``subsections (a)(2)(A) and (d)'' and inserting ``subsection
(d)'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``becomes available
for such alien (or, in the case of subsection (d), the date
on which an immigrant visa number became available for the
alien's parent)'', and inserting ``became available for the
alien's parent,''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``applicable'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``The petition'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``The petition
described in this paragraph is a petition filed under section
204 for classification of the alien parent under subsection
(a) or (b).''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``subsections (a)(2)(A)
and (d)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(8) Procedure for granting immigrant status.--Section 204
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) in clause (iii)--

(aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``citizen'' each place that term appears; and
(bb) in subclause (II)(aa)(CC)(bbb), by inserting ``or
legal permanent resident'' after ``citizenship'';

(II) in clause (iv)--

(aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``citizen'' each place that term appears; and
(bb) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``citizenship'';

(III) in clause (v)(I), by inserting ``or legal permanent
resident'' after ``citizen''; and
(IV) in clause (vi)--

(aa) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident status''
after ``renunciation of citizenship''; and
(bb) by inserting ``or legal permanent resident'' after
``abuser's citizenship'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B);
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (J) as
subparagraphs (B) through (I), respectively;
(iv) in subparagraph (B), as so redesignated, by striking
``subparagraph (A)(iii), (A)(iv), (B)(ii), or (B)(iii)'' and
inserting ``clause (iii) or (iv) of subparagraph (A)''; and
(v) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated--

(I) by striking ``or clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph
(B)''; and
(II) by striking ``under subparagraphs (C) and (D)'' and
inserting ``under subparagraphs (B) and (C)'';

(B) by striking subsection (a)(2);
(C) in subsection (h), by striking ``or a petition filed
under subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii)''; and
(D) in subsection (j), by striking ``subsection (a)(1)(D)''
and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(C)''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________